Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Star Wars

This is topic Star Wars in forum Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000850

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-26-2003, 09:28 PM:

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)

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 03-27-2003, 03:51 AM:

Actually the attatched trailer on the SE version was an Empire/Jedi combo trailer.

-Aaron

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 09-29-2003, 12:48 AM:

---- 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

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 09-29-2003, 02:06 AM:

Wasn't anamorphic 2.35:1 at that time? [evil]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-29-2003, 04:14 AM:

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.)

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 09-29-2003, 01:41 PM:

I thought there wasn't supposed to be any chat.... [Smile]

quote:
Wasn't anamorphic 2.35:1 at that time?

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."

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 09-29-2003, 03:17 PM:

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]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-29-2003, 03:59 PM:

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.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 09-29-2003, 04:39 PM:

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?

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....

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 09-29-2003, 06:19 PM:

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

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-29-2003, 11:17 PM:

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.

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 11-13-2007, 10:52 PM:

It has been 1505 days since the last post.

Posted by Blaine Young (Member # 3992) on 11-13-2007, 10:52 PM:

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.

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 05-20-2012, 06:06 PM:

It has been 1649 days since the last post.

Posted by Jim Henk (Member # 3628) on 05-20-2012, 06:06 PM:

Never mind - just went back and double checked something. Was wrong. These are not the droids you're looking for. Move along...