Star Wars episode 4

[Filip Plesha]

Hi,this is sort of a response to an old post by David Mullen.

 

i have been searching the archives,and i noticed that

you said that this film was shot on 5247,but you were not sure wheather it

was the older europe-only version,or the actual 5247 used

in US later.Are you sure about this?

 

I have a clear picture of George with his panaflex,

and unfortunatly a whit elabel is blocked by the viewfinder,but

you can see that there is a number there,the last digit is 4.

If this is the film stock number (usually labeled on the magazine on this spot)

then it can only be 5254.

 

And there is another reason why i question what you have said.

The look of the film and the color tone scale reminds me of

film shot on 5254. For example,it looks very similar to the film

"return of the pink panther" in its tone scale. A very recognizable 70's look.

Star Wars looks totally different from films shot on 5247 like

Empire strikes back,or Alien,or Apocalipse.

The film just looks too much like older 70's films,than like

later films shot on 5247.

 

Anyway,another thing.It has been said that color films prior to the release

of 5247 had problems with fading. And it just happens that the only film

in the trilogy that has visibly faded is this one.

 

Maybe they bought the filmstock in US,maybe it was cheaper,or maybe

they heard about the problems with the newer stock,or something,so they used

the well tested 5254.

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm in Philadelphia for a few months with no access to research materials so I can't say anything other than it's been generally noted that "Star Wars" was shot on 5247, which was more commonly used than 5254 for features shot in the U.K. between 1975-1976 when Kodak obsoleted 5254. One U.K. cameraman at the same time as "Star Wars" went into production, when shooting "The Deep," was asked by the American producers if he wanted to use 5254 or 5247 and he said he didn't even know Kodak was still selling 5254.

 

"Close Encounters" used both stocks because they shot their effects in 65mm and Kodak had not yet released 5247 in 65mm. But since "Star Wars" used VistaVision for efx photography, that would not have been an issue.

 

Perhaps you saw part of a label that included the batch number after the stock number, which was common back then to do.

 

Anyway, I have no access to Star Wars material right now or I'd start looking at photos with the mags visible. There was an "American Cinematographer" article although I don't own that 1977 issue, being rare and expensive. The A.C. article from the restoration would say (and I believe it states 5247 was in the cut neg, as well as CRI and dupe neg stock.)

 

"Apocalypse Now" was also shot on 5247 and suffered the same 10% loss of color saturation as the original "Star Wars."

[Filip Plesha]

right now,as i am writting this,i'm watching "the swarm" on TV.

It is from 1978,so i belive it was shot for certain on 5247.

It allso has that older look of "star wars". I guess i could be wrong then.

but i am still amazed how different those films look.

 

I mean,the lighting on "star wars" as well as on this film "the swarm"

is very old fashion,hard key lights and probably a lot of actors filled

with sweat on a hot set.But natural light exteriors allso look different.

 

Maybe they made some change in the filmstock somewhere in 1978

without changing the film stock number.

I alway remember 5247 for its soft contrast and low colors like

seen in early 80's films. But these films (Star Wars and Swarm)

have very vivid and warm colors. For one thing,flesh tones way more natural in later films like Alien or Empire stirkes back.Like i said,perhaps kodak

made some radical change in the tone scale.

 

And as for the film stock number,yes it could be something else written

beside the film stock number.

[David Mullen ASC]

5247 was slightly more contrasty than 5254, and a little less grainy, but you're making the differences to be more than they were. You could mix them in the same movie and get away with it.

 

Cameramen made those stocks look soft or sharp by how they shot them. The 1970's were a time when a lot of DP's were using fog filters, flashing, etc. so it's very hard to attribute softness to just the stock. Photography changed over the decade but not consistently. Later films could be described as being soft lit with sharp lenses versus earlier hard lit with soft lenses (or filters.)

 

Anyway, "Star Wars" always looked like 5247 to my eyes in the theaters, but like I said, it wasn't as significant change in look as you are describing. And with cameramen using Fogs, Low Cons, etc. it's really hard to see the differences. Plus you're not even talking about how these movies look projected but how they look on home video, which is completely deceptive.

 

Anyone want to dig up the A.C. issue on the restoration a few years ago? They unspliced the negative and mentioned the stocks they found in it.

 

"Star Wars" was lit with hard light and no diffusion (other than the heavy nets used in the desert scenes) while "Empire" was lit with soft light and Low Con filters so of course the fleshtones and color saturation would feel different. Plus "Empire" is a "bluer" movie in design.

[Mitch Gross]

When watching a movie like "The Swarm" on TV, much of what you think of as the film's characteristics are in fact the video transfer technology of the time. The film was likely mastered to 1" on an old Bosch or Rank-3 and quite possibly from a lowcom film print to boot. It's amazing what an old film retransfered on a modern machine from quality film elements can look like. A complete transformation.

 

I'll see if I can dig my way into my AC library. What was the rerelease date for Ep. 4? Feb. 99?

[John Pytlak RIP]

The February 1997 issue of "American Cinematographer" specifically cites the film types in the cut negative of "Star Wars Episode IV' as 5243, 5247, 5253, and CRI (5249). The Special Edition Visual Effects Producer Tom Kennedy said: "They made far too many release prints off the original neg".

 

CRI (5249) was the most problematic for fading, indicating that the cut negative likely was not stored at the reduced temperatures recommended for long term film storage (SMPTE Recommended Practice RP131). No mention of B&W separations having been made either. :(

[Patrick Neary]

Just to throw this in to the mix: I remember reading that Gil Taylor used nets on the back of the lenses for some sequences, and if I recall, at least the desert-planet-scenes (you know, where Luke lived) had a very "netty" look...

[Filip Plesha]

As for transfers. I don't think it has to do anything with

the way films were transfered in 70's because,i'm mostly

judging the look from the new 1997 transfer (of Star Wars).

 

It must be the cinematography style then.

Empire used quite softer light,and they made it look more natural.

 

Star Wars didn't really go for naturalism,there was a lot

of bright sharp light on sets like Death star set. Plus

like you said,everything in Star Wars had a brownish and yellow

texture so it made the film look warmer.

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, but: (1) you're talking about standard definition video resolution and (2) digital color-correction can make an image low-con, hi-con, saturated, desaturated -- taken together, it means that a home video transfer is not an accurate way to judge the stocks of the past. Plus you don't always know the quality of the film element used to make the transfer.

 

The fact that "Star Wars" and "Empire" look so different yet were shot on the same stocks speak to the power of the cinematographer. I mean, until the early 1980's, most movies were shot on the same Kodak stock. Look at the year Robert Surtees was nominated for an Oscar for two movies, "The Graduate" and "Dr. Doolittle" which looked pretty different. Or compare "The Godfather" to some super-slick Hollywood movie of the same year.

[Michael Nash]

Just a useless side note --

 

I filmed in the basement of the defunct CFI film lab in Hollywood not too long ago, a great sci-fi/horror location filled with a gazillion tubes, tanks, ducts, pipes, valves, and decades of residual gunk. Great looking place.

 

The buildings are now used only for film storage. On the steps down to the basement I found a smashed post-it note that says, "R6 Star Wars 121-109-117."