Could Disney finally give us the remastered, unedited Star Wars we want?

Actually, there were no matte boxes visible when Star Wars was released in theaters. The matte boxes are an artifact of transferring the film onto video format. So I would say a digital clean-up to make the film look as it did when released in theaters in 1977 would be acceptable. However, the Episode IV: A New Hope was not in the original release so I would say leave that out.
I'm not sure about that. I can't find anything that backs up that the matte boxes are an artifact of a transferring the "film to video format." Near as I can tell, the boxes weren't visible initially due to a few factors... format, projection, etc. but, they were always there just differing levels of how they were noticed. The matte boxes were always a part of Star Wars.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
I'm not sure about that. I can't find anything that backs up that the matte boxes are an artifact of a transferring the "film to video format." Near as I can tell, the boxes weren't visible initially due to a few factors... format, projection, etc. but, they were always there just differing levels of how they were noticed. The matte boxes were always a part of Star Wars.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Yep I think your right JD

Going back to Harmy's Despecialized,.....his restoration to reproduce the film as seen in cinemas and he apologises that he cannot undo the matte box removal

J
 
I just read that 4k Blu-ray specs to be confirmed in the first half of 2015.

See here: http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=14923

Perfect timing for Fox and Disney, if they start remastering Star Wars for a brand new 4K release now, they might have it ready when this new format begins to hit the marketplace. The master for the SE Blu-rays will now be obsolete since they were done at only 2K. Perfect time to restore and remaster the OOT that so many fans want to see, and they could release the SEs at the same time so people have a choice, it would be a win win for everyone.

I JUST started buying regular blu-rays!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CRAP.
 
I'm not sure about that. I can't find anything that backs up that the matte boxes are an artifact of a transferring the "film to video format." Near as I can tell, the boxes weren't visible initially due to a few factors... format, projection, etc. but, they were always there just differing levels of how they were noticed. The matte boxes were always a part of Star Wars.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

There was extensive coverage of this in FX publications of the time, like Cinefex and American Cinematographer. The high contrast of print film stocks masked the matte density differences that made the boxes visible, they were just barely there but not discernible on screen. In the early 80s Kodak introduced a new print stock, 5380 EASTMAN Color LC (low contrast). This stock had a different color balance and lower contrast to improve the appearance of films during video transfer. But it made the matte boxes show up more clearly, transparency in matte shots was also more evident. This led FX companies to develop new matting techniques to try to compensate. ILM would make two prints of a matte element and stack them in the printer to increase matte density, nearly eliminating the problem.

I don't like the idea of "improving" FX shots, I think they are a valuable piece of film history and should be preserved as is. I enjoy watching much older films dating back the the early 30s, which make things like Star Wars look magnificent by comparison. Just clean up dirt and scratches, fix color fade, etc. But since the matte boxes were not originally seen, I can go either way on it.
 
I JUST started buying regular blu-rays!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CRAP.

That's good then because you have not invested that much in discs yet. I already have about 100 BR discs. But that is the way of technology. However, I think at 4k there will be a lot films that I have that probably will not be released on 4k for a long time if ever. Either because the source materials are too old or because the film is not popular enough for companies to do a 4k transfer and/or restoration. I think the first films we'll see in a new 4k disc format will be newer releases that have been shot digitally. However, Sony and some other companies have already released BR discs that have been mastered in 4K, so those films are currently ready to be released in a 4k format.

Hopefully the new 4k players will be backwards compatible with current Blu-ray discs so they get up-converted to 4k, which would still look really good especially if you have a 60" HDTV or smaller. That way a lot of my collection will still be in use, as I buy newer 4k titles that I already have I will slowly phase out the BR 2K equivalents.
 
Last edited:
There was extensive coverage of this in FX publications of the time, like Cinefex and American Cinematographer. The high contrast of print film stocks masked the matte density differences that made the boxes visible, they were just barely there but not discernible on screen. In the early 80s Kodak introduced a new print stock, 5380 EASTMAN Color LC (low contrast). This stock had a different color balance and lower contrast to improve the appearance of films during video transfer. But it made the matte boxes show up more clearly, transparency in matte shots was also more evident. This led FX companies to develop new matting techniques to try to compensate. ILM would make two prints of a matte element and stack them in the printer to increase matte density, nearly eliminating the problem.
Interesting, I'm obviously not a film maker (either in movies or in actual production of film stock), but I'm curious how this couldn't be corrected with "color balancing/leveling" (for lack of better terms). Since it appears to be a contrast issue, why not just tweak the contrast. Also curious since this was filmed on a stock that allegedly wouldn't pick up the matte lines... well, why would it suddenly "appear" with a digital transfer? It's not like the film itself changed... wouldn't the matte lines still be hidden into the new medium?

I'm not disputing you and I've got practically zero knowledge about film stock.

I don't like the idea of "improving" FX shots, I think they are a valuable piece of film history and should be preserved as is. I enjoy watching much older films dating back the the early 30s, which make things like Star Wars look magnificent by comparison. Just clean up dirt and scratches, fix color fade, etc. But since the matte boxes were not originally seen, I can go either way on it.
I like the idea of the movie maker making those decisions for himself... but, that path's been well beaten.
 
Interesting, I'm obviously not a film maker (either in movies or in actual production of film stock), but I'm curious how this couldn't be corrected with "color balancing/leveling" (for lack of better terms). Since it appears to be a contrast issue, why not just tweak the contrast. Also curious since this was filmed on a stock that allegedly wouldn't pick up the matte lines... well, why would it suddenly "appear" with a digital transfer? It's not like the film itself changed... wouldn't the matte lines still be hidden into the new medium?

I'm not disputing you and I've got practically zero knowledge about film stock.
I'm not a filmmaker either. Just an avid fan of visual effects work, I read all the behind the scenes stuff I could get my hands on. Matte lines and matte boxes are very different things. A matte line happens when a matte doesn't fit the image properly, the line is the matte itself visible beyond the image edge. The "matte boxes" as some have called them are an artifact of "garbage mattes", so called because they remove light stands, model mounts and other unwanted "garbage" from the frame. If a model ship, say a TIE fighter is filmed with bluescreen, the matting process creates two mattes from it, the "hold out" matte which is the black silhouette of the TIE that allows it to be printed into the background. And the "cover matte" which is the reverse, a black frame with a clear TIE that is used to blacken the bluescreen. The lights and other "garbage" are still there, matted in along with the TIE. The rotoscope animation dept. would create garbage mattes to block it out. This is a black frame with a squarish clear space that surrounds the TIE. This matte usually has a very dense image, very black and opaque. The cover matte made from the bluecreen process isn't quite as dense, it's more of a dark gray by comparison. When the garbage matte is combined with the cover matte, the density difference creates a faint grayish "box" around the TIE in the completed composite.

When the negative of the composite image is printed, the contrast of the projection film stock reduces the grayish effect so it's not obvious on screen. But the video transfer was made from the LC stock, the negative was re-printed onto the new stock. Thus the gray box is more visible.

I hope this makes sense :lol


I like the idea of the movie maker making those decisions for himself... but, that path's been well beaten.

No argument from me on that. But Lucas is the only one who suppresses the original. Whatever he may think of the OOT, many of us feel it still has value as a historical artifact if nothing else. The crew assembled to form ILM did some amazing work, the absolute best that could be done at the time. Their work deserves to be preserved in the best quality possible, and released alongside the SEs.
 
I was also a real reader of behind-the-scenes stuff, but I never really got into the film details. Not sure if I understand it completely. I recall bits and pieces about how presentation affects how we see certain things and thought it fell under that category.

...and of course, I disagree (to certain extents) on the last bit as I feel a creator/owner deserves to have control over his property. Folks were hired to do the work and they got paid... But, I don't want to head down that road again.
 
I'm not a filmmaker either. Just an avid fan of visual effects work, I read all the behind the scenes stuff I could get my hands on. Matte lines and matte boxes are very different things. A matte line happens when a matte doesn't fit the image properly, the line is the matte itself visible beyond the image edge. The "matte boxes" as some have called them are an artifact of "garbage mattes", so called because they remove light stands, model mounts and other unwanted "garbage" from the frame. If a model ship, say a TIE fighter is filmed with bluescreen, the matting process creates two mattes from it, the "hold out" matte which is the black silhouette of the TIE that allows it to be printed into the background. And the "cover matte" which is the reverse, a black frame with a clear TIE that is used to blacken the bluescreen. The lights and other "garbage" are still there, matted in along with the TIE. The rotoscope animation dept. would create garbage mattes to block it out. This is a black frame with a squarish clear space that surrounds the TIE. This matte usually has a very dense image, very black and opaque. The cover matte made from the bluecreen process isn't quite as dense, it's more of a dark gray by comparison. When the garbage matte is combined with the cover matte, the density difference creates a faint grayish "box" around the TIE in the completed composite.

When the negative of the composite image is printed, the contrast of the projection film stock reduces the grayish effect so it's not obvious on screen. But the video transfer was made from the LC stock, the negative was re-printed onto the new stock. Thus the gray box is more visible.

I hope this makes sense :lol

I really like visual effects and background info. as well. The only part I think that might be different from what you have said is that the film stock that the final composite is printed onto actually has less contrast and more latitude than the final video master that is used to make copies for mass market. The video component has more contrast and less latitude (the range between the brightest brights and darkest darks that a medium can reproduce) than the film stock, hence when the film stock is transferred to the video medium the images contrast increases and in turn the matte boxes become more emphasized and enhanced. So, the matte boxes may be in the actual film that was used in the projectors in 1977 but because of the film's wider latitude the matte boxes were not able to be seen by the naked eye.

I'll have a look at my Super 8 films of Star Wars and see if the matte boxes are visible on there. Since it is a film to film transfer they probably should not be (as) visible as on a video format.
 
Last edited:
IMO the visible garbage matte boxes have really gotten distracting in the home releases of the OT.

I don't blame anyone for the problem as it stands now, but I would definitely vote to digitally remove them from any future releases of the OOT. They are a difference from the original theatrical experience and it's totally a negative change. If they had always been so visible on film then I think the ILM'ers would have probably made more efforts to fight the problem from the beginning.
 
...when the film stock is transferred to the video medium the images contrast increases and in turn the matte boxes become more emphasized and enhanced. So, the matte boxes may be in the actual film that was used in the projectors in 1977 but because of the film's wider latitude the matte boxes were not able to be seen by the naked eye.

Not quite. Increased contrast in a film print means a narrower range of tones. The matte boxes appear because they are a slightly lighter black than the surrounding black of the space background. The high contrast of the film print reduces the difference making the box less visible. A lower contrast print makes the difference more noticeable. Video transfer increases contrast which is why the new film stock was created. It allowed a video transfer to look better overall than it would from a standard print, but also allowed the density differences in matte shots to show.

I wish I could remember specifically which articles covered this, I would have to do a major search to find it. But Cinefex and American Cinematographer both covered the subject, in interviews with the FX artists, in early to mid 80s issues.
 
IMO the visible garbage matte boxes have really gotten distracting in the home releases of the OT.

I don't blame anyone for the problem as it stands now, but I would definitely vote to digitally remove them from any future releases of the OOT. They are a difference from the original theatrical experience and it's totally a negative change. If they had always been so visible on film then I think the ILM'ers would have probably made more efforts to fight the problem from the beginning.

I agree, that's one thing that I would like to see kept/done in a OOT release, esp. since the matte lines weren't meant to be part of the film and just a byproduct of the limitations of the tech at the time and technical issues.
 
I agree, that's one thing that I would like to see kept/done in a OOT release, esp. since the matte lines weren't meant to be part of the film and just a byproduct of the limitations of the tech at the time and technical issues.

But, you know Greedo was meant to shoot first. Han shooting first is just a byproduct of the limitations of the tech.......... :lol :lol :lol you get my drift :p
anything can be claimed :p
 
Here we go again... instead actually discussing the topic at hand, let's drag it down and make it about trivial bits that it's not about.

Was Vader Luke and Leia's father initially? No - it was retconned. Were Leia and Luke brother and sister? No - retcon. Did Vader originally kill Luke's father? Yes - it was retconned out (from a certain point of view ;) ).

So, yes... Lucas and company changed their minds on a lot of things. Han shooting, Vader screaming... changes he opted to make after the fact. Not debating whether it betters the series or if you like them or not - but, the silly jabs about "limitations" are just childish - when retconning Star Wars has been a part of it since day one.
 
I would have thought mentioning things we don't like about the special editions while talking about a release of the none special edition is on topic.
 
Last edited:
You really cant help yourself can you?
Oh, look my stalker is back and worrying about me again. Not sure what your issue is with me - but, you're starting to scare me.

What your problem is beyond me. If you don't like that I make comments or dare have an opinion, I would suggest ignoring me.
 
Last edited:
This thread is more than 9 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top