Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[Jeff Kleist]

The Blu-rays are sourced from the resulting masters just as he describes

[MerrickG]

Why is Lucasfilm not taking advantage of (aka exploiting) the 30th anniversary of The Empire Strikes Back?

If there was a better time to release Star Wars on bluray, I cant think of one.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by tvine2000

Jeff i read that piece.It is a great piece but did he really address the pq issue with Fotr? Are these the new hd masters were seeing for blu-ray?

He did say he did a test for PJ and PJ wanted a new hd master done.Question is with warners track record did they not do a new master?

The real question is what does WB *mean* by "new master" versus what you or I might be thinking.

By "new master" it seems that WB means taking the existing DI for the last two films and applying different digital processing versus the post-processed "master" on the shelf from the previous release efforts.

For Fellowship, the issue gets even tricker bcs the entire film wasn't finalized to a DI... some parts were film-based only and others were Digital... so the "master" was a scan from a print (or photochemical IP, not sure which). Either way it means that Fellowship has an extra "analog" processing step versus the later two films. Many fans have wondered if WB did a fresh "scan" of this finalized photochemial source for the Blu-ray, but that has not been confirmed, making the notion of "new master" even less meaningful.

Jargon games are really where most of these discussions break down. Most casual readers would assume that "new master" means "new scan" or something similar (though the concept of "new scan" loses meaning when we talk about films finalized to DI). On the contrary, it seems that what studios mean by "new master" is taking an early-generation digital capture and re-processing with contemporary digital tools versus using the existing masters which were processed with out-dated digital tools. A "new transfer" would imply a new digital scan of a photochemical source, but that's not been suggested for WB's work with LOTR (and would only really apply to the first film anyway since it was the only film that was finalized on actual film).

The result may still be an improvement over what's come before, but it's important to clarify the boundaries of what "new master" really means.

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Why is Lucasfilm not taking advantage of (aka exploiting) the 30th anniversary of The Empire Strikes Back?

If there was a better time to release Star Wars on bluray, I cant think of one.

Lucas doesn't need an anniversary to shill his Star Wars products. He'll release them when he feels like it. No sooner, no later. I would never expect him to adhere to anything that seems an "obvious opportunity" to consumers.

2011 has been suggested, and that seems pretty aggressive compared to his DVD timeline.

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

The real question is what does WB *mean* by "new master" versus what you or I might be thinking.

By "new master" it seems that WB means taking the existing D1 for the last two films and applying different digital processing versus the post-processed "master" on the shelf from the previous release efforts.

For Fellowship, the issue gets even tricker bcs the entire film wasn't finalized to a D1... some parts were film-based only and others were Digital... so the "master" was a scan from a print (or photochemical IP, not sure which). Either way it means that Fellowship has an extra "analog" processing step versus the later two films. Many fans have wondered if WB did a fresh "scan" of this finalized photochemial source for the Blu-ray, but that has not been confirmed, making the notion of "new master" even less meaningful.

Jargon games are really where most of these discussions break down. Most casual readers would assume that "new master" means "new scan" or something similar (though the concept of "new scan" loses meaning when we talk about films finalized to D1). On the contrary, it seems that what studios mean by "new master" is taking an early-generation digital capture and re-processing with contemporary digital tools versus using the existing masters which were processed with out-dated digital tools. A "new transfer" would imply a new digital scan of a photochemical source, but that's not been suggested for WB's work with LOTR (and would only really apply to the first film anyway since it was the only film that was finalized on actual film).

The result may still be an improvement over what's come before, but it's important to clarify the boundaries of what "new master" really means.

Sounds like this is a good as fellowship will ever look

[Jeff Kleist]

What there is is in the piece. I'm not going to say anything more on it lest it have unintended parsing.

[42041]

Originally Posted by tvine2000

Sounds like this is a good as fellowship will ever look

if that was the case, the blu-ray would be sourced directly from the 2K DI, and new scans of the non-digital bits. The wobbly image throughout the whole movie suggests otherwise to me, since I don't think digital renderings and the pin-registered DI scans wobble like that

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by 42041

if that was the case, the blu-ray would be sourced directly from the 2K DI, and new scans of the non-digital bits. The wobbly image throughout the whole movie suggests otherwise to me, since I don't think digital renderings and the pin-registered DI scans wobble like that

Exactly. Rather than using the final photochemical print to rescan, the parts that were DI already could have been directly ported, and the photochemical sequences instead scanned from an earlier-generation element so that the end result could have been higher resolution with greater depth. That would have involved more time and effort, but would have been well worth the investment.

[Jeff Kleist]

There is no DI of Fellowship. There may be one in the future, but there is not now.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

There is no DI of Fellowship. There may be one in the future, but there is not now.

We know... that's what we're saying. That the current master was sourced from a photochemical print rather than from a DI like the other two films (because some parts of Fellowship were sources from digital files versus other scenes that were live-action all the way to the final print).

But since certain *parts* of Fellowship were printed to that film from DI (the digital effects scenes), those scenes could be ported directly to a new DI without incurring the additional loss of printing to film and then *back* to digital. Then the portions of Fellowship that were "finalized" in the photochemical realm could be scanned at the earliest-generation possible (like the photochemical interpositive rather than print) to gain better resolution. The end result would be an improvevement worth the effort.

[Vincent Pereira]

You keep saying "print", DaViD. I sincerely doubt a "print" was used, they are almost never used for modern video transfers unless they are the only available element. It would either be the 35mm IP, or cut negative.

Vincent

[MerrickG]

Why is GI Joe the movie getting a bluray release, but not Transformers (1986)?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Why is GI Joe the movie getting a bluray release, but not Transformers (1986)?

I'm wondering why either would get a Blu-ray release.

Thank heavens Walt Disney didn't live to see that kind of horrid animation on a theater screen.

[Jeff Kleist]

Transformers looks great on Blu-ray, I have the UK import. Stan Bush in full bitrate DTS FTW

THe opening of the movie, where they spent most of their money is quite impressive on the big screen, especially the iconic shot of Prime's launch

Why is GI Joe the movie getting a bluray release, but not Transformers (1986)?

Sony Wonder still controls it, and that entire division is defunct. It's not a matter of Shout not wanting it.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Transformers looks great on Blu-ray, I have the UK import. Stan Bush in full bitrate DTS FTW

THe opening of the movie, where they spent most of their money is quite impressive on the big screen, especially the iconic shot of Prime's launch



Sony Wonder still controls it, and that entire division is defunct. It's not a matter of Shout not wanting it.

The one thing I will always applaud Michael Bay for is getting Peter Cullen back to voice Prime and Nimoy to voice Megatron.

[Jeff Kleist]

The one thing I will always applaud Michael Bay for is getting Peter Cullen back to voice Prime and Nimoy to voice Megatron.

Wasn't his idea There are fighters of the good fight inside the production who did their best to keep as many pieces of the original intact as they could.

Nimoy is not "Megatron". It's Hugo Weaving.

Bay was correct when he said Frank Welker's voice has changed too much for Megatron. He sounds terrible in the games. Though at least he's a good actor, unlike Megan Fox, who somehow won a "best actress in a video game" award for a performance that would make the people in Hong Kong and Australia dubbing anime in the 80s cringe

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Wasn't his idea There are fighters of the good fight inside the production who did their best to keep as many pieces of the original intact as they could.

Nimoy is not "Megatron". It's Hugo Weaving.

Bay was correct when he said Frank Welker's voice has changed too much for Megatron. He sounds terrible in the games. Though at least he's a good actor, unlike Megan Fox, who somehow won a "best actress in a video game" award for a performance that would make the people in Hong Kong and Australia dubbing anime in the 80s cringe

Oh right sorry. I am hoping the 3rd film will have as little of Bay's influence as possible. As much as I like his formula of more and more explosions and toilet jokes, I just want to see robots kicking the crap out of each other.

[Jeff Kleist]

I just wish they'd throw it out, start over and make a real Transformers movie

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I just wish they'd throw it out, start over and make a real Transformers movie

Oh I still think Paramount's follow-up to Bay's 3rd installment will be an animated film by Dreamworks SKG, I just hope it lives up to the 1986 one.

[jd213]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Transformers looks great on Blu-ray, I have the UK import. Stan Bush in full bitrate DTS FTW

THe opening of the movie, where they spent most of their money is quite impressive on the big screen, especially the iconic shot of Prime's launch

The animation quality is pretty consistent throughout the entire film, IMO. It's some of Toei's best mecha animation, and is a huge leap above the TV series. I believe it's also more impressive than other Toei films from the 80's like the Dragonball movies, but it's been more than a decade since I've seen any of those.