crown
New Member
Posts: 1,136
|
Post by crown on Aug 13, 2016 20:15:57 GMT -5
I find that I only like the wirework and BEST OF ALL the front-projection zoptic flying shots in the Reeve movies.
The blue screen was generally crap.
Why couldn't they ALWAYS use front projections and zoptic in addition to the wirework???
Why use ugly-arse Blue screen at all with gross traveling mattes of Superman in a turquoise suit??
|
|
|
Post by inebriated87 on Aug 13, 2016 21:33:05 GMT -5
Wasn't there a huge rush to get STM released for Christmas 1978 ? One of the reasons Donner fell out with the Salkinds is that he spent wads of cash reshooting to get things right, but in the end they ran out of time anyway. I remember Donner saying in some doco that there were scenes he still wished he could have fixed. As for Superman II, Lester just didn't care quite as much, or at least knew not to cross the producers as he wanted the money they had owed him for years.
Some of the bluescreen is bad even by 1970s bluescreen standards.
For STM, the Hoover Dam green-suited poorly speeded up shot is the worst in the whole movie. The recent colour correction doesn't really improve it much ... it's just a badly conceived shot.
The alley change bluescreen in S2 is one of the worst, made worse by coming straight after the awesome shirt-rip.
Recently I realised that the shot of Zod having his heat vision reflected back at him in S2 is bluescreen. That's a great effect.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 13, 2016 22:01:17 GMT -5
Most of the blue screen shots in the Rocketeer don't look nearly as good as most of the flying work in the Superman movies. I love that movie but that's something that always bugged me. He often looked flat and had the composite line around him. Meteor Man had that same problem.
|
|
|
Post by booshman on Aug 14, 2016 0:40:38 GMT -5
The Zoptic shots had Reeve in a hidden body cast which kept him static and the camera/ backdrop created the illusion of movement. For any shot where Superman was required to turn in frame and where he was at a great disatnace from the camera required blue screen work. If wire work was required to manoevre in shot, these would obviously interfere with the Zoptic process. If he needed to be really far away, these would require a huge screen for the background to be projected on. I have no idea the size limitation for the Zoptic process, but theres must have been a cutoff for the furthest away Superman could appear from the camera in a given shot. The only shots I believe that were acheivable with Zoptics but used bluescreen in Superman the Movie were the behind the head shots when chasing the rocket. Since they did the shot landing with Jimmy using projection I think it would have being possible Other scenes that could have been done had it not been for how far away Superman is in the shot: Arriving on the scene to save Frisky the cat. Flying up the dam. Flying into the clouds before the voices of Jor-El and Pa Kent are heard. There are a few really nice blue screen shots though. There are many more examples for parts 2 and 3 that Zoptics could have been used but they weren't. Lots of cutting corners without Donner. Though I will give Superman 3 this one, one of the best blue screen shot of all the movies.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Aug 14, 2016 4:29:52 GMT -5
Thanks Booshman I think this shot is actually a recomposite that Thau did in 2000: web.archive.org/web/20021204054518/http://www.dvdfile.com/news/special_report/superman/index.htmlMichael Thau: Then, the five cloud shots at the end of the film were so horrifically grainy compared to everything else in the film. Everything in the film looks pretty darn good, especially projected, but those cloud shots at the end and the one shot of him whipping around the Earth were so grainy that I decided to fix those digitally. For a couple of them, we actually found the original cloud plate, where Brando's face comes up. I don't know how Elaine did it, but she actually found a reference in the paperwork to the footage being from the Paramount stock library. Paramount looked up the records, they found the shot and we got permission to scan in the original negative, which was shot flat, not scope, and digitally we recreated that shot. We used the Superman from the original comp, because we couldn't find his blue screen element for those shots in particular. The Brando face, they grabbed that from the original comp and then touched it up to get rid of the grain and then they did their own animation for the lightning. If you look at the lightning on the laserdisc, during those shots up in the clouds with Superman's face, it looks horrible, really horrible. Then you look at Pac-Titles' animation for that, it great! So we digitally fixed those cloud shots. I think there was five of them. It's still a bit grainy because the cloud element was shot in the 1950s, and I didn't want to use a miscellaneous cloud element. I wanted to use the same one because the bank of clouds has a particular shape to it. But I was lucky we found the original element. The Superman element, it's so small that it was ok to grab that from the comp. They degrained it and it makes a huge difference.
|
|
|
Post by booshman on Aug 14, 2016 5:29:14 GMT -5
Thanks Booshman I think this shot is actually a recomposite that Thau did in 2000: web.archive.org/web/20021204054518/http://www.dvdfile.com/news/special_report/superman/index.htmlMichael Thau: Then, the five cloud shots at the end of the film were so horrifically grainy compared to everything else in the film. Everything in the film looks pretty darn good, especially projected, but those cloud shots at the end and the one shot of him whipping around the Earth were so grainy that I decided to fix those digitally. For a couple of them, we actually found the original cloud plate, where Brando's face comes up. I don't know how Elaine did it, but she actually found a reference in the paperwork to the footage being from the Paramount stock library. Paramount looked up the records, they found the shot and we got permission to scan in the original negative, which was shot flat, not scope, and digitally we recreated that shot. We used the Superman from the original comp, because we couldn't find his blue screen element for those shots in particular. The Brando face, they grabbed that from the original comp and then touched it up to get rid of the grain and then they did their own animation for the lightning. If you look at the lightning on the laserdisc, during those shots up in the clouds with Superman's face, it looks horrible, really horrible. Then you look at Pac-Titles' animation for that, it great! So we digitally fixed those cloud shots. I think there was five of them. It's still a bit grainy because the cloud element was shot in the 1950s, and I didn't want to use a miscellaneous cloud element. I wanted to use the same one because the bank of clouds has a particular shape to it. But I was lucky we found the original element. The Superman element, it's so small that it was ok to grab that from the comp. They degrained it and it makes a huge difference.
That's interesting info, thanks for the link. The shot I posted is actually the original version, as it was taken from the theatrical cut master. Here's the 2001 version for comparison. I've also added a pic of the Brando head in the cloud to compare, since it was mentioned in the article. Theatrical on the top, 2001 on the bottom.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Aug 14, 2016 6:29:19 GMT -5
Thanks again Booshman.
It's tough to call.
is it possible they used the re-comp from the special edition for the theatrical master too?!
I do have the 1982 P&S and 1991 Widescreen Laserdiscs.......which would contain the original unaltered shots.
Will figure out a way to get a screen grab.
|
|
|
Post by booshman on Aug 14, 2016 8:34:02 GMT -5
Thanks again Booshman. It's tough to call. is it possible they used the re-comp from the special edition for the theatrical master too?! I do have the 1982 P&S and 1991 Widescreen Laserdiscs.......which would contain the original unaltered shots. Will figure out a way to get a screen grab. You know what, I think you're right. Check out this shot from a 16mm print. Brando looks a lot more like himself on the left than the ghostly impression in the cloud seen on the right. Looks like not only has Thau recomped the shot, but he's had a little fiddle with it too.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Aug 14, 2016 10:39:06 GMT -5
Thanks again Booshman. It's tough to call. is it possible they used the re-comp from the special edition for the theatrical master too?! I do have the 1982 P&S and 1991 Widescreen Laserdiscs.......which would contain the original unaltered shots. Will figure out a way to get a screen grab. You know what, I think you're right. Check out this shot from a 16mm print. Brando looks a lot more like himself on the left than the ghostly impression in the cloud seen on the right. Looks like not only has Thau recomped the shot, but he's had a little fiddle with it too. Very interesting Booshman. Thanks again. To my eye there is more detail in the cloud formation in the HD version than the 16mm print. In 1978 they took the original negative plate from the paramount archives and made an interpositive from it which would have incurred a loss in resolution. They then composited that interpositive with the interpositive blue screen elements of Supes and Brando creating a new internegative(in Roy Field's famous optical printer) , ,thereby inducing an even greater degradation in resolution. That internegative was then inserted into the O-Neg assembly of the entire movie. In other words that shot was already inherently soft. Also each composited element introduced dirt(embedded between the blue screen element's layers). I have the 1979/1980 VHS....released barely 12 Months after STM finished it's original theatrical run.The dirt specks on the clouds are there in full throttle suggesting they were always there from day one. In 2000 Thau and his team digitally re-scanned the original negative plate from the Paramount archives creating a digital positive image without sustaining any loss in resolution . He then essentially cut and pasted the Brando and Supes elements from the scanned O-Neg(or a scan of a 35mm interpositive) onto that digital positive image scanned from the Paramount Archives. Hence the reason why it ultimately looks much sharper. Hope that makes sense and not confusing ----lol
|
|
|
Post by booshman on Aug 14, 2016 11:24:50 GMT -5
You know what, I think you're right. Check out this shot from a 16mm print. Brando looks a lot more like himself on the left than the ghostly impression in the cloud seen on the right. Looks like not only has Thau recomped the shot, but he's had a little fiddle with it too. Very interesting Booshman. Thanks again. To my eye there is more detail in the cloud formation in the HD version than the 16mm print. In 1978 they took the original negative plate from the paramount archives and made an interpositive from it which would have incurred a loss in resolution. They then composited that interpositive with the interpositive blue screen elements of Supes and Brando creating a new internegative(in Roy Field's famous optical printer) , ,thereby inducing an even greater degradation in resolution. That internegative was then inserted into the O-Neg assembly of the entire movie. In other words that shot was already inherently soft. Also each composited element introduced dirt(embedded between the blue screen element's layers). I have the 1979/1980 VHS....released barely 12 Months after STM finished it's original theatrical run.The dirt specks on the clouds are there in full throttle suggesting they were always there from day one. In 2000 Thau and his team digitally re-scanned the original negative plate from the Paramount archives creating a digital positive image without sustaining any loss in resolution . He then essentially cut and pasted the Brando and Supes elements from the scanned O-Neg(or a scan of a 35mm interpositive) onto that digital positive image scanned from the Paramount Archives. Hence the reason why it ultimately looks much sharper. Hope that makes sense and not confusing ----lol I get exactly what you mean about the process of how the show was created and ultimately recreated later on. The clouds definitely retain more detail with the recreated shot. I do think though that the more up to date version has a different aesthetic quality where the Brando head is concerned. The original shot it looks like he was cut and pasted into the shot, which is exactly what they did. In the newer shot, which you would expect Brando to more clearly visible due to no generation loss, it's harder to see him. I think they have made a creative decision to make Brando's head appear to be more a part of the clouds, and less a direct representation of his face. The outline of his face and the stronger lines of his features on the first version, have almost disappeared in the second version.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Aug 14, 2016 11:58:46 GMT -5
Agree 100% Booshman.
It seems like the fainter appearance of Brando is Thau's decision.
Unfortunately they were unable to find the original blue screen element of Supes(and maybe Brando too) in 1999/2000.
Hence the reason why they cut and paste those portions from a scan of either the 35mm O-Neg or a 35mm Interpositive.
It's this type of tinkering that would drive fans(I am one of them) that are clamoring for a Star Wars 1977 restoration nuts....lol The question is where do you draw the line in terms of obtaining a "pure" version.
The best analogy is cooking.
Do you use the same ingredients to make a new recipe(the 2001 remaster)
Or do you just eat the original dish which contained those very same ingredients(the P&S 1979 VHS,the P&S 1982 laserdisc and the 1991 Widescreen laserdisc). I have the above 3.
And whilst the resolution is lower than the Blu ray(or that 16mm print you showed)......it is nice to see the film as it was originally presented(yes--Supes green costume,the grainy clouds ect ect)....but that is just me lol.
On edit; technically what i wrote above is not true. The 1979 VHS is missing a few seconds of footage at various points(the train drivers looking back at Supes holding up the railway is one example). The 1991 laserdisc has what was then the newer WB Logo as opposed to the original Saul Bass WB version. That leaves the 1982 P& S laserdisc as the only true version without any alterations......but being P&S....you are missing massive portions of the original widescreen composition.....so you can't win....lol
|
|
|
Post by inebriated87 on Aug 14, 2016 12:01:27 GMT -5
I was about to say that shot from S3 isn't bluescreen ... but wow ... I've gotta admit, it had me fooled, and I am nobodies fool ... It's been made in such a way that the bluescreen Supes is blended with the background, not just overlayed ... the brighter parts of the background show through. But how to explain this photo of the scene ? Did they try a live wire shot then decide to redo it in bluescreen ?
|
|
|
Post by booshman on Aug 14, 2016 12:15:03 GMT -5
Agree 100% Booshman. It seems like the fainter appearance of Brando is Thau's decision. Unfortunately they were unable to find the original blue screen element of Supes(and maybe Brando too) in 1999/2000. Hence the reason why they cut and paste those portions from a scan of either the 35mm O-Neg or a 35mm Interpositive. It's this type of tinkering that would drive fans(I am one of them) that are clamoring for a Star Wars 1977 restoration nuts....lol The question is where do you draw the line in terms of obtaining a "pure" version. The best analogy is cooking. Do you use the same ingredients to make a new recipe(the 2001 remaster) Or do you just eat the original dish which contained those very same ingredients(the P&S 1979 VHS,the P&S 1982 laserdisc and the 1991 Widescreen laserdisc). I have the above 3. And whilst the resolution is lower than the Blu ray(or that 16mm print you showed)......it is nice to see the film as it was originally presented(yes--Supes green costume,the grainy clouds ect ect)....but that is just me lol. On edit; technically what i wrote above is not true. The 1979 VHS is missing a few seconds of footage at various points(the train drivers looking back at Supes holding up the railway is one example). The 1991 laserdisc has what was then the newer WB Logo as opposed to the original Saul Bass WB version. That leaves the 1982 P& S laserdisc as the only true version without any alterations......but being P&S....you are missing massive portions of the original widescreen composition.....so you can't win....lol I wopuld like to say that I'm a purist when it comes to these things, Star Wars being a prime example of the kind of tinkering I hate. That said, I've never noticed this before, but then again I haven't seen my VHS in years, and that's the last time I've seen this version other than the time I watched the 16mm print through. I was about to say that shot from S3 isn't bluescreen ... but wow ... I've gotta admit, it had me fooled, and I am nobodies fool ... It's been made in such a way that the bluescreen Supes is blended with the background, not just overlayed ... the brighter parts of the background show through. But how to explain this photo of the scene ? Did they try a live wire shot then decide to redo it in bluescreen ? I've often wondered about this shot. I only noticed you could see though him when I came to rotoscope the shot, and going frame by frame is was noticeable. It's very odd as I always thought it was practical based on the behind the scenes footage. Something must have been amiss with the footage they got and they needed to adjust is. Luckily they got it to look as good as it does.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 14, 2016 17:03:08 GMT -5
Wow I've always thought that was practical/live on set too. Amazing. I never noticed anything amiss with it like Supermans boots being part transparent in SIV when he's lifting the Statue of Liberty.
When it comes to restoration and changes to films I'm of the belief that anything that changes the original intent or what was possible back when the film was made is wrong or at the very least questionable.
But correcting a mistake or flaw is fair game. Like the wire removal on the Superman III and IV Blurays. I couldn't believe WB actually out the effort in to do anything to "fix" IV when people on the board were saying it but they actually did. That doesn't change the intent. It's what should have been done in the first place.
One of the few times I feel it's been acceptable is Star Trek remastered and even then I was a little torn. They had to do something because the show was going to air in HD. While I hate the original version of the show isn't being aired in local syndication they have at least made both versions of the show available on home video.
What Thau didn changed the actual experience. Donner talks about being too far removed from it to do SII's recut right but what Thau did was no better. Some of his choices were absolutely amateurish. Some of the music edits were dreadful. There are fan editors out there that could have (and have) delivered a better Donner Cut If they'd been left the same notes and materials.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 14, 2016 17:33:54 GMT -5
Thanks again Booshman. It's tough to call. is it possible they used the re-comp from the special edition for the theatrical master too?! I do have the 1982 P&S and 1991 Widescreen Laserdiscs.......which would contain the original unaltered shots. Will figure out a way to get a screen grab. You know what, I think you're right. Check out this shot from a 16mm print. Brando looks a lot more like himself on the left than the ghostly impression in the cloud seen on the right. Looks like not only has Thau recomped the shot, but he's had a little fiddle with it too. Memory is not the best, but I seem to remember seeing the grain in the theatre! Interesting stuff... Personally, I would have preferred the return of the grain and even 'green' Superman by the Hoover Dam. Or at least having that flawed one remastered. I like having access to original presentation, warts and all. (Though I know this sounds like a contradiction)
|
|
|
Post by booshman on Aug 15, 2016 2:05:11 GMT -5
Wow I've always thought that was practical/live on set too. Amazing. I never noticed anything amiss with it like Supermans boots being part transparent in SIV when he's lifting the Statue of Liberty. When it comes to restoration and changes to films I'm of the belief that anything that changes the original intent or what was possible back when the film was made is wrong or at the very least questionable. But correcting a mistake or flaw is fair game. Like the wire removal on the Superman III and IV Blurays. I couldn't believe WB actually out the effort in to do anything to "fix" IV when people on the board were saying it but they actually did. That doesn't change the intent. It's what should have been done in the first place. One of the few times I feel it's been acceptable is Star Trek remastered and even then I was a little torn. They had to do something because the show was going to air in HD. While I hate the original version of the show isn't being aired in local syndication they have at least made both versions of the show available on home video. I'm more of the "leave it as it is" mindset. I get removing wires if they were never visible before, and only can be seen because of the increased resolution of home cinema. I remember seeing wires on TV as a kid though, and now that they are all gone for the most part, I feel a bit of the original craftsmanship has been gone. For me it doesn't spoil the magic seeing wires or matte lines or whatnot, it's just a constraint of the time the movie was made. There appear to be new changes every new generation of release. The DVD changed the sky colour sor part 3 in a lot of shots. Then the bluray tidied up some of the original wire removal with more perfect digital removal. With each new revision it takes away a bit of someones original work, and erases a bit of the original forever. I think the worst offense with the newer reelases is the colour changes to the bluray. Not only is it revisionist to suit a modern look, but some of the original special effects can't be seen because the white level is off. Watch the scene where Superman drops the lake in Superman 3. On the bluray it looks like a big white blob and you can barely see it cracking as it falls. A shame since there is a whole section in the making of Superman 3 (on the bluray), where they explain how they acheived the effect that you can't even see in the movie. As for Star Strek Remastered, I think the new effects look pretty bad. Definitely not the version I would watch, so I'm glad both versions are available.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Aug 15, 2016 6:13:54 GMT -5
Great work again Booshman. IMHO They should release at least 2 versions: One should be the original version(warts and all---green costume -wires present, dirt specks ect ect)....as CAM suggested. Then they should release a cleaned up and recolored version(as we now have for all 4 films) as Metallo says. And if they want to do a Lucas and add new bits in ....release that as a 3rd version. But the studio would never back it.
|
|
|
Post by booshman on Aug 15, 2016 9:06:09 GMT -5
Great work again Booshman. IMHO They should release at least 2 versions: One should be the original version(warts and all---green costume -wires present, dirt specks ect ect)....as CAM suggested. Then they should release a cleaned up and recolored version(as we now have for all 4 films) as Metallo says. And if they want to do a Lucas and add new bits in ....release that as a 3rd version. But the studio would never back it. I'm down for the first 2, the third I can live without. Here's a couple of examples of where I remeber always being able to see the wires. Of course, they're gone in the latest release, but I'm sure they would have been visible in the cinema back in '83. This one I consider a pretty major alteration. You can see the original looks very washed out, even monochrome, other than the colour of the cape and boots. You can see above Superman there are areas of the bridge where they have attempted to paint out the wires, but it's quite crude and stands out once you notice it. The bluray has fixed the colours of the blue on the suit and the bridge, as well as removing the original wire removal job. Then there are shots like this, which I have no idea why they did blue screen over Zoptics.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Aug 15, 2016 13:30:29 GMT -5
Hi Booshman
I saw Superman III aged 9 in 1983 and again in 1984(a Saturday morning matinee')
Cannot remember anything regarding picture quality other than the fact it looked amazing.......compared to the home video cassettes we had at the time!
It is all about what we are used to.
back then VHS,Betamax,V2000(a system here in Europe),Laserdisk and CEDs were all the rage in the then nascent home video market.......but they could not hold a candle to 35mm exhibition.
If I saw a Superman III 35mm print now i would be in the front row of the cinema scrutinizing every frame lol
However studies performed in recent years have evaluated that the average 35mm theatrical print would have had a resolution that would be equivalent to roughly 720p. The original negative has roughly 4K............so going from Original negative to interpositive to internegative to a theatrical positive 35mm print meant that the footage sustained heavy losses in image detail.
That may sound shocking but some film makers preferred this, because it maintained the illusion......just like Supe's wires being hidden...or not.
Would be really interested to see if they are visible.
According to Jim Bower The blu rays have been scanned from 1st generation interpositives(so one generation removed from the original negative ,technically making them sharper than the 4th generation 35mm theatrical prints that would have been on exhibition in 1978-1983.
But this was one of the reasons why studios and film makers have moved over to the digital intermediate whereby less resolution is lost from camera to theatrical projection. Its all digital now(from camera on set to projection in cinema) anyways so times have changed.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 15, 2016 16:07:44 GMT -5
Great work again Booshman. IMHO They should release at least 2 versions: One should be the original version(warts and all---green costume -wires present, dirt specks ect ect)....as CAM suggested. Then they should release a cleaned up and recolored version(as we now have for all 4 films) as Metallo says. And if they want to do a Lucas and add new bits in ....release that as a 3rd version. But the studio would never back it. I'm down for the first 2, the third I can live without. Here's a couple of examples of where I remeber always being able to see the wires. Of course, they're gone in the latest release, but I'm sure they would have been visible in the cinema back in '83. This one I consider a pretty major alteration. You can see the original looks very washed out, even monochrome, other than the colour of the cape and boots. You can see above Superman there are areas of the bridge where they have attempted to paint out the wires, but it's quite crude and stands out once you notice it. The bluray has fixed the colours of the blue on the suit and the bridge, as well as removing the original wire removal job. Then there are shots like this, which I have no idea why they did blue screen over Zoptics. The reason I held off on the blurays for so long was because the color timing looked way off to me. The reds looked almost orange. It just looked wrong to me. As for bad Superman III flying shots one of the worst if not the worst is a wide shot of superman going towards camera as he's flying over the country to the canyon Webster and co are in. You guys know the shot I'm talking about. I actually used to prefer when some tv versions would cut it out.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 15, 2016 16:13:39 GMT -5
Hi Booshman I saw Superman III aged 9 in 1983 and again in 1984(a Saturday morning matinee') Cannot remember anything regarding picture quality other than the fact it looked amazing.......compared to the home video cassettes we had at the time! It is all about what we are used to. back then VHS,Betamax,V2000(a system here in Europe),Laserdisk and CEDs were all the rage in the then nascent home video market.......but they could not hold a candle to 35mm exhibition. If I saw a Superman III 35mm print now i would be in the front row of the cinema scrutinizing every frame lol However studies performed in recent years have evaluated that the average 35mm theatrical print would have had a resolution that would be equivalent to roughly 720p. The original negative has roughly 4K............so going from Original negative to interpositive to internegative to a theatrical positive 35mm print meant that the footage sustained heavy losses in image detail. That may sound shocking but some film makers preferred this, because it maintained the illusion......just like Supe's wires being hidden...or not. Would be really interested to see if they are visible. According to Jim Bower The blu rays have been scanned from 1st generation interpositives(so one generation removed from the original negative ,technically making them sharper than the 4th generation 35mm theatrical prints that would have been on exhibition in 1978-1983. But this was one of the reasons why studios and film makers have moved over to the digital intermediate whereby less resolution is lost from camera to theatrical projection. Its all digital now(from camera on set to projection in cinema) anyways so times have changed. One of the reasons the effects look so good on the Ghostbusters bluray is because they were filmed at such high resolution. Sadly a lot of effects films of the 80s didn't have that luxury or didn't think ahead so higher resolution isn't very forgiving. Highlander being one. I haven't gotten the recent 30th anniversary release but the previous bluray looks grainy as he|| during some optical effects or transitions.
|
|
crown
New Member
Posts: 1,136
|
Post by crown on Aug 15, 2016 19:21:23 GMT -5
I'm down for the first 2, the third I can live without. Here's a couple of examples of where I remeber always being able to see the wires. Of course, they're gone in the latest release, but I'm sure they would have been visible in the cinema back in '83. This one I consider a pretty major alteration. You can see the original looks very washed out, even monochrome, other than the colour of the cape and boots. You can see above Superman there are areas of the bridge where they have attempted to paint out the wires, but it's quite crude and stands out once you notice it. The bluray has fixed the colours of the blue on the suit and the bridge, as well as removing the original wire removal job. Then there are shots like this, which I have no idea why they did blue screen over Zoptics. The reason I held off on the blurays for so long was because the color timing looked way off to me. The reds looked almost orange. It just looked wrong to me. As for bad Superman III flying shots one of the worst if not the worst is a wide shot of superman going towards camera as he's flying over the country to the canyon Webster and co are in. You guys know the shot I'm talking about. I actually used to prefer when some tv versions would cut it out. I always though something looked off about the faux zoptic shot of Supes flying at camera to rescue little Ricky. However, the scene of Superman (reclaimed by the good side of the Force) flying out of the junkyard I could have sworn was a zoptic. 3 Cheers for Lester for that shot for sure... for once he got away with his cheapness!
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,769
|
Post by atp on Aug 16, 2016 2:47:13 GMT -5
Visible wires or not, those flying shots of Reeve still look incredible.
How is it that MoS was made 30 years after Superman 3, yet the flying looked worse and less believable?
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Aug 16, 2016 3:16:59 GMT -5
Hi Booshman I saw Superman III aged 9 in 1983 and again in 1984(a Saturday morning matinee') Cannot remember anything regarding picture quality other than the fact it looked amazing.......compared to the home video cassettes we had at the time! It is all about what we are used to. back then VHS,Betamax,V2000(a system here in Europe),Laserdisk and CEDs were all the rage in the then nascent home video market.......but they could not hold a candle to 35mm exhibition. If I saw a Superman III 35mm print now i would be in the front row of the cinema scrutinizing every frame lol However studies performed in recent years have evaluated that the average 35mm theatrical print would have had a resolution that would be equivalent to roughly 720p. The original negative has roughly 4K............so going from Original negative to interpositive to internegative to a theatrical positive 35mm print meant that the footage sustained heavy losses in image detail. That may sound shocking but some film makers preferred this, because it maintained the illusion......just like Supe's wires being hidden...or not. Would be really interested to see if they are visible. According to Jim Bower The blu rays have been scanned from 1st generation interpositives(so one generation removed from the original negative ,technically making them sharper than the 4th generation 35mm theatrical prints that would have been on exhibition in 1978-1983. But this was one of the reasons why studios and film makers have moved over to the digital intermediate whereby less resolution is lost from camera to theatrical projection. Its all digital now(from camera on set to projection in cinema) anyways so times have changed. One of the reasons the effects look so good on the Ghostbusters bluray is because they were filmed at such high resolution. Sadly a lot of effects films of the 80s didn't have that luxury or didn't think ahead so higher resolution isn't very forgiving. Highlander being one. I haven't gotten the recent 30th anniversary release but the previous bluray looks grainy as he|| during some optical effects or transitions. Yes Ghostbusters used 70mm film for the blue screen elements(the stay puft marsh mellow man ect ect) However those 70mm elements were combined with the 35mm live footage in the optical printer. Close Encounters used the same method. Ghostbusters(and Star Wars)VFX guru Richard Edlund said in an interview that he was a bit peeved how that composite took the edge of the sharpness of the 70mm photography(once it was combined with the 35mm footage). I have not seen the UHD version of Ghostbusters......but it will be even less forgiving than the HD one. I have a 4K projector and have watched all the Supes flicks upscaled on a 110inch reference screen. Even with the adjusted color timing they look pretty great(especially I to III) in terms of production value. IV's limitation in budget really comes to the fore on the blu ray.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Aug 16, 2016 3:23:10 GMT -5
@ Crown.
I think Lester gets a bad rap for cheapness although I understand where the animosity comes from.
SII and SIII look great on a big screen(as does STM of course)
I have scrutinized them with my 4k projection system and they do hold up very well.
My opinion of course!
|
|