I just bought this set recently and was dreading watching TPM because most of the reviews mentioned waxy faces and too much DVR. After watching it, what waxy faces? When I think of waxy faces, I think of Predator and the original version of Gladiator.
Furthermore, I went back to read some of the reviews and they mention that since it was shot on film (unlike the other two prequels), it should look the best. Some reviewers mention grain on the DVD and users mention HD broadcasts showing 'fine grain and detail'
My eyes are pretty good, and I notice that it has a grainless soft look. But it was always soft and it went through a Lowry de-graining and super resolution process. Is this just viral group think? Two people say it so everybody thinks they see it and repeat it? Sort of like the many DVDs that had edge halos from compression which were mistaken for edge enhancement in titles that didn't have edge enhancement?
TPM, like FOTR, did not have a digital intermediate process but was almost entirely digital. The first blu ray (and theatrical and DVD) release for FOTR was a scan of an interpositive. The EE version is from a 100% digital intermediate without the generation loss of going to an internegative and then and interpositive.
Same thing with TPM, the limited digital release (one of the first) and the DVD were sourced from and IP as was the HD broadcast version shown in some countries. This is where more grain would have been picked up and less details (more grain = illusion of detail to some eyes?). Now when TPM first came out, only one shot (gas vent in the beginning) was not digitally altered meaning it was almost entirely a digital film, but it was edited with a tradtional negative process. Like FOTR EE, the blu ray and 3d versions are from the original digital files:
http://legend3d.com/sites/default/fi...5%208%2012.pdf
Quote:
There needed to be two new color timing parts to the show and Knoll used this opportunity to upgrade all the
material, since when Episode I was originally finished, it was done on a per shot basis – “done sort of old style, inal a shot, film out a shot, look at a print of that negative and that’s what we would final”. It went through a
conventional negative cut. An optical timed IP was generated from that and then then master printing
negatives were made from that timed IP. So everything audiences saw in the theater was two generations
down from the original. “When the original DVD was released,” Knoll says, “it came from scanning in the timed
IP because it was the simplest thing to do. But when it came time to do [the conversion], we were going to
take the movie and cut it up into 2,000 separate pieces, work on them and re-assemble it, we had an
opportunity to go back to the original material. We could go back to the original film-out tapes that are a
couple of generations better than what had been seen. So we figured let’s do that. We made a concerted
effort to collect all the bits, re-create all the dissolves and pre-wipes. So that was all pre-graded material, so
we had to do all new color timing, just to have the new Blu-ray master. Then there is a device-dependent color
timing that’s done to compensate for the light loss that comes from stereo.”
|
The film-out tapes are the digital shots. All the CG works was probably done at 2k after the film was scanned into a (late 90s) 2k film scanner, then stored on the tapes. If it is true only the one shot wasn't digital, they probably scanned that at 2k. Then they had to digitally re-create the wipes and dissolves (which I'm guessing were optical in 1999) and re color time it to a new digital master for the blu ray and 3d release (both used same master).
I know that Lowry cleaned and de-grained it. They don't use DNR, they use a technique that looks for identical frames and combines the detail in adjacent frames reducing grain since grain is random. This also increases the perceived resolution, but only in still frame shots.
It's possible that LFL used a DNR at this point to assist in the 3d process (because it helps). I'm not convinced that's what they did here. TPM was probably scanned into a spirit datacine scanner in 1998 which would have been slightly lower than 2k. Even if it did receive DNR, I don't think it would destroy two optical generations of detail (spatial resolution is lowered a lot in optical duping due to uneven film speed 'smearing' which is why original negatives are the best scanning source if available).
I think people are looking at the interpositive-sourced grain and confusing it with detail and confusing the soft look (especially on the sides which might be due to an anamorphic lens because they do that). The only way TPM could look better is if they re-rendered the 3d and further re-assembled the film which isn't viable. That goes for all films with 2k digital intermediates which is most films in the last 10 years.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Linear Mode
