Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets   » Star Wars

   
Author Topic: Star Wars
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001


 - posted 03-26-2003 09:28 PM      Profile for Michael Coate   Email Michael Coate   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
A prior request was made here but has been relocated into another forum category. Since some print spec info/variations was being requested I thought it would be ideal to have a new entry created for the FITA archive. Print details only...no chat, please. Find any of the numerous other Star Wars threads for discussion.

1977 original release:

70mm:
20th Century Fox
"Full width" (2.21:1)
Six-Track Dolby Stereo A (41 or 42)
Six reels
121 minutes
Deluxe Lab (print)
Todd-AO (sounding)

35mm:
20th Century Fox
Scope (2.39:1)
Dolby A
Six reels
121 minutes
Deluxe Lab

35mm:
20th Century Fox
Scope (2.39:1)
Mono
Six reels
121 minutes
Deluxe Lab

• there were also a number of IB Tech and 4-track mag prints made

• multiple audio mixes were made - 70mm, 35mm-stereo, and 35mm-mono versions differ from one another (mainly minor non-sync dialogue and sound effects differences)

• post Empire re-release prints have a revised opening scroll

• AKA Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope

1997 Special Edition:
20th Century Fox
Scope (2.39:1)
SR/SRD/DTS/SDDS
Six reels
125 minutes
Deluxe Lab
Trailer: The Empire Strikes Back

• a 70mm-DTS print was made for special screening(s)

 |  IP: Logged

Aaron Sisemore
Flaming Ribs beat Reeses Peanut Butter Cups any day!

Posts: 3061
From: Rockwall TX USA
Registered: Sep 1999


 - posted 03-27-2003 03:51 AM      Profile for Aaron Sisemore   Email Aaron Sisemore   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Actually the attatched trailer on the SE version was an Empire/Jedi combo trailer.

-Aaron

 |  IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002


 - posted 09-29-2003 12:48 AM      Profile for John Hawkinson   Email John Hawkinson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
---- Print-specific info (for rep. titles)
Special Edition (1997 rerelease)
Nontheatrical exchange: Criterion Pictures (their print)
Criterion print #A:0776
Kodak 2386 polyester stock (1997)
Grade-by-reel (range 1-10): 576667
Overall grade: 6 ("Good")
DTS discs missing (and hard to come by, it seems)

Tail of the film generally intact (original cues still there), though it's gone through a fair bit of use. Visible base-side scratching, particularly on R1, but under control. Perhaps the most odd thing is periodic color shifts toward red, lasting anywhere from a few seconds to a few minutes. Perhaps the result of improper storage and infrequent rotation?

--jhawk

 |  IP: Logged

Adam Martin
I'm not even gonna point out the irony.

Posts: 3686
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Nov 2000


 - posted 09-29-2003 02:06 AM      Profile for Adam Martin   Author's Homepage   Email Adam Martin       Edit/Delete Post 
Wasn't anamorphic 2.35:1 at that time? [evil]

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 09-29-2003 04:14 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, these were 2.35 prints. I am shocked Mike missed that.

John, the color shifting was on all prints. It was that way on the best of the remaining elements. That wasn't just the copy you screened.

(BTW, there is a mistimed lab cue in the SE version of Empire Strikes Back. Around reel 2 or 3. The cues are too late and it will botch up your changeover.)

 |  IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001


 - posted 09-29-2003 01:41 PM      Profile for Michael Coate   Email Michael Coate   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I thought there wasn't supposed to be any chat.... [Smile]

quote:
Wasn't anamorphic 2.35:1 at that time? [evil]
quote:
Yes, these were 2.35 prints. I am shocked Mike missed that.
Huh?! What was it that Mike missed??? Didn't SMPTE recognize "2.39:1" as the anamorphic projection standard six or seven years prior to the release of Star Wars? Please don't turn this into a nit-picky argument over the "correctness" of "2.35:1," "2.39:1" and "2.40:1."

 |  IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999


 - posted 09-29-2003 03:17 PM      Profile for Paul Linfesty   Email Paul Linfesty   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I thought there wasn't supposed to be any chat....
Well, the rules at the top ALSO say "You must have personally handled the print being discussed to post in this forum".

Have you personaly handled every version of the prints you posted? [Big Grin]

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 09-29-2003 03:59 PM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Please don't turn this into a nit-picky argument over the "correctness" of "2.35:1," "2.39:1" and "2.40:1."
It's just that you are usually so picky about the tiny little details, Mike.

 |  IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001


 - posted 09-29-2003 04:39 PM      Profile for Michael Coate   Email Michael Coate   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Brad wrote:
quote:
It's just that you are usually so picky about the tiny little details, Mike.
Yeah, but I was correct!!! I stated in the initial post that the scope prints were intended for 2.39:1 projection. I wasn't trying to bait anyone for an argument with that info; the ratio was listed simply as a formality. Maybe I should've wrote "scope" and left it at that.

Adam chimed in asking if 2.35:1 was the correct ratio in 1977. I replied with a comment that SMPTE changed the anamorphic projection standard from 2.35:1 to 2.39:1 before the release of Star Wars, which means that my original information was correct. Unless I've misunderstood Adam's question....

Paul asked:
quote:
Have you personally handled every version of the prints you posted? [Big Grin]
Paul,
Just because I'm a journalist today doesn't mean that I wasn't once a projectionist. And just because I wasn't a projectionist in 1977 doesn't mean that I couldn't have come into contact with the prints in subsequent years. Moreover, you're overlooking the fact that I know many projectionists and have access to private screenings and to prints in the possession of collectors.

But to answer your question: no, I have not handled every print I provided specs for. I haven't handled that 70mm-DTS print. So ban me from the site for not following directions....

 |  IP: Logged

Daryl C. W. O'Shea
Film God

Posts: 3977
From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from)
Registered: Jun 2002


 - posted 09-29-2003 06:19 PM      Profile for Daryl C. W. O'Shea   Author's Homepage   Email Daryl C. W. O'Shea   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
2.39:1 was proposed in 1970 and standardized in 1971.

John Pytlak's post about his paper for WideScreen Museum

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/apertures.htm

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 09-29-2003 11:17 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Perhaps the most odd thing is periodic color shifts toward red, lasting anywhere from a few seconds to a few minutes. Perhaps the result of improper storage and infrequent rotation?


Uneven dye fading is often indicative of improper storage. For example, film stored near a heat source will have a convolution repeat, where the side of the roll that was hotter fades faster. Or acidic by-products of hydrolysis from excess humidity settle on one side of the storage container, causing localized dye fading.

 |  IP: Logged

System Notices
Forum Watchdog / Soup Nazi

Posts: 215

Registered: Apr 2004


 - posted 11-13-2007 10:52 PM      Profile for System Notices         Edit/Delete Post 

It has been 1505 days since the last post.


 |  IP: Logged

Blaine Young
Master Film Handler

Posts: 477
From: Kirkland, WA, USA
Registered: Sep 2006


 - posted 11-13-2007 10:52 PM      Profile for Blaine Young   Email Blaine Young   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
International Print: No Attachment

While the heads/tails indicate SR/SRD/DTS/SDDS on the international print, there is no SDDS track - at least not on the print I've handled.

 |  IP: Logged

System Notices
Forum Watchdog / Soup Nazi

Posts: 215

Registered: Apr 2004


 - posted 05-20-2012 06:06 PM      Profile for System Notices         Edit/Delete Post 

It has been 1649 days since the last post.


 |  IP: Logged

Jim Henk
Master Film Handler

Posts: 364
From: San Diego, CA
Registered: Feb 2006


 - posted 05-20-2012 06:06 PM      Profile for Jim Henk   Email Jim Henk   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Never mind - just went back and double checked something. Was wrong. These are not the droids you're looking for. Move along...

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)  
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.