Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[kemcha]

I'm referring to scenes like when Luke rides into Toshi station and looks up at the night sky, before R2-D2 and C-3PO enter into the Escape Pod. These are important scenes that should be added back into the film.

Personally, I would love to see Yoda CGI'd in Episodes 5 and 6. It would improve the original trilogy. But, of course, the die hard fanatics would cry "FOUL" and demand the puppet Yoda be added back into the films.

I just never understood the reasoning behind fighting over outdated and inferior scenes. It's why I have no attitude over the Special Edition version of the Original Trilogy. While I would appreciate George Lucas restoring the original "Han Shoots First" back into "A New Hope", I'm not angry over it because nobody could ever take away the enjoyment I have for the Star Wars movie series.

I remember my dad taking me and my brother to see the original Star Wars movie back in the summer of 1977 and I have always regarded that memory of my father as a very important part of my life. The release of the Special Edition trilogy didn't diminish that experience, it made me appreciate the original trilogy even more (*notice I said "The Original Trilogy and not the original theatrical version).

I'll always enjoy these Star Wars movies and nothing will ever change that, not even if Lucas decides to add even more scenes into these special edition films for the 50th anniversary.

[42041]

Originally Posted by danny_boy

James Cameron:[/B]
" They're wrong. You can take an HD image and blow it up by double before you start to see the same amount of granularity you have with a 35mm negative. George Lucas did some tests that I flew up to see, and it corresponded to what we'd found. I'd say the Sony HD 900 series cameras are generating an image that's about equivalent to a 65mm original negative".
http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org...tml?1030913916.[/I]

I like Cameron's movies but that is so utterly wrong it's hard to know where to begin

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by 42041

I like Cameron's movies but that is so utterly wrong it's hard to know where to begin

He's talking about once projected. Digital capture to digital cinema.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Fanboyz

Somebody should just do a rogue telecine of whatever release 77-83 prints that they may or may not have access to at some point.
It would be the morally just thing to do.

You have to remember that in the days of Star Wars, successful films played at theatres for months at a time. And then the same print was frequently moved down to a "B" theatre. In addition, the dyes in 1970s films were very poor and even if the film was not projected and kept in a vault, it's doubtful that it looks very good today (although a vault kept print would at least be clean, not worn and not have tons of bad splices.)

It's really doubtful that any prints survived in any kind of condition that would be better than what is already on DVD (or even VHS). Normal procedure would have been that the prints were sent back to the depot at the end of their useful lives where they would have been destroyed.

And of course, even if it existed, if anyone released the footage they would be strictly violating the law. No court would consider that "morally just". There are valid copyrights associated with these prints. They are by no means in the public domain.

[rocinante]

Originally Posted by 42041

I like Cameron's movies but that is so utterly wrong it's hard to know where to begin

You know more about this stuff than James Cameron? Wow.

[42041]

Originally Posted by rocinante

You know more about this stuff than James Cameron? Wow.

News flash: film isn't used exclusively by filmmakers.
If you were to tell any photographer who shoots medium format, which is about the same width as a 65mm movie negative, that it's equivalent to 1080p in horizontal resolution, they'd laugh in your face.

Of course, don't take my word for it: http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical...solution.shtml

[danny_boy]

Originally Posted by 42041

News flash: film isn't used exclusively by filmmakers.
If you were to tell any photographer who shoots medium format, which is about the same width as a 65mm movie negative, that it's equivalent to 1080p in horizontal resolution, they'd laugh in your face.

Of course, don't take my word for it: http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical...solution.shtml

That is an interesting article but it excludes the reduction in quality that is synonimouse with the photochemichal printing process:


http://www.efilm.com/publish/2008/05/19/4K%20plus.pdf

What is on a 35/65mm camera negative is not what is on a 35/65mm interpositive release print.
A significant amount of "resolution" or lines pairs per mm is lost during the transition from negative to positive.

Another fallacy is the distinction that is often made between the quality in terms of the resolution of 8mm,16mm,35mm and 65mm.The fallacy being that there is no distinction between the different formats in terms of resolution(it is just the frame size that changes).

No matter how it is cut – film material always possesses the same performance data: the
smallest reproducible detail (20% modulation) on a camera film negative (up to 200 ASA) is
about 0.006 mm – as was determined in our analysis from part1. We can think of this as
the size of film’s “pixels”, a concept that is well known from electronic image processing.
And it does not matter if it is 16 mm, 35 mm, or 65 mm film: the crystalline structure of
the emulsion is independent of the film format. Also, the transmission capability of the
imaging lens is generally high enough to transfer this spatial frequency (0.006 mm = 80
lp/mm) almost equally well for all film formats.
Page 10
http://www.efilm.com/publish/2008/05/19/4K%20plus.pdf

[Deciazulado]

Well in that olegnovikov.com article you're comparing the equivalent of a 6K scan of 65/70 mm to a 3.5K digital camera capture, which when equalized doesn't look that different except mainly for the grain



Like danny_boy mentions, JC probably meant more how a direct digital to digital 1080 looks compared to what prints originated from 65/70mm negatives tend to look, as no one can see how a negative looks directly (Unless you have negat-o supertelescopic vision :>), and the influence of grain in the perception of image clarity ([frequency x amplitude]/noise).

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by 42041

News flash: film isn't used exclusively by filmmakers.
If you were to tell any photographer who shoots medium format, which is about the same width as a 65mm movie negative, that it's equivalent to 1080p in horizontal resolution, they'd laugh in your face.

Of course, don't take my word for it: http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical...solution.shtml

Apples and oranges. We're talking about moving images, not stills. The eye is a lot more forgiving of motion pictures, which is what allowed HD cameras with a 2 megapixel sensor (!) to deliver such sharp and colourful images on Episode II. It's not about the numbers, but about the practical reality of how this stuff actually looks. The people who were/are using HD say that it delivered close to 65mm resolution, and if it can be blown up to 15-perf 70mm IMAX without incident then who am I to disagree?

[42041]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Well in that olegnovikov.com article you're comparing the equivalent of a 6K scan of 65/70 mm to a 3.5K digital camera capture, which when equalized doesn't look that different except mainly for the grain

But I think that comparison makes it plenty obvious that Cameron's statement is untrue, since a D700 has far higher resolution than the output of Sony 1080p camera. He also neglects problems such as aliasing/moire that rear their head at lower resolutions, and of course that digital cameras are hardly immune from noise (something Cameron would know since he had Lowry noise-reduce the Avatar footage).

Cameron's quote is that the Sony 1080p camera is equivalent to the original 65mm negative. Not a 4th generation print or a low-res scan. If it was a 4K camera I'd buy that. Yeah, after all practical considerations like projector optics and viewing distance, it might effectively be a wash for most viewers, but a 1080p image is forever locked into that resolution, which is certainly OK for blu-ray, but you could get a very legit 4K out of 65mm film (and probably a questionable 8k). Who's to say what future technology will bring?

[miniroll32]

I remember when this used to be a Star Wars thread. Those were the days.

[kenkraly2004]

Can we get back to star wars talk please?

[Spidey Blu]

Originally Posted by miniroll32

I remember when this used to be a Star Wars thread. Those were the days.

What the hell is Star Wars?

[42041]

Originally Posted by kenkraly2004

Can we get back to star wars talk please?

No one's holding the thread hostage If there's anything groundbreaking left to say about this set months after it was announced and months before its released, go for it

[kenkraly2004]

Originally Posted by 42041

No one's holding the thread hostage If there's anything groundbreaking left to say about this set months after it was announced and months before its released, go for it

I never said anyone is holding the thread hostage ok. I am just saying we need to stay on topic.

[nathan_393]

If you consider the fact that the Star Wars prequels were shot digitally and that we initially started this conversation because although they'll look great on Blu-ray, they may not in the future, then we still are on topic.

[Deciazulado]

Because in the future, they won't look great?

*snap


In any case I think Penton has something to sell you

[brps3]

In the future SW will be in 3D. Then a hologram. It will just get better and better. So looking forward to getting this on blue. I dont care what they cost.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by miniroll32

I remember when this used to be a Star Wars thread. Those were the days.

No such thing. All so-called SW threads are just rival camps pulling at either end of George Lucas.

I hope we all tear him in half at some point.

[danny_boy]

Originally Posted by 42041

But I think that comparison makes it plenty obvious that Cameron's statement is untrue, since a D700 has far higher resolution than the output of Sony 1080p camera. He also neglects problems such as aliasing/moire that rear their head at lower resolutions, and of course that digital cameras are hardly immune from noise (something Cameron would know since he had Lowry noise-reduce the Avatar footage).

Cameron's quote is that the Sony 1080p camera is equivalent to the original 65mm negative. Not a 4th generation print or a low-res scan. If it was a 4K camera I'd buy that. Yeah, after all practical considerations like projector optics and viewing distance, it might effectively be a wash for most viewers, but a 1080p image is forever locked into that resolution, which is certainly OK for blu-ray, but you could get a very legit 4K out of 65mm film (and probably a questionable 8k). Who's to say what future technology will bring?

Each format had it's pros and cons.
Digital may produce aliasing and moire but film produces grain,dirt,flutter and softness.

Bottom line is that 1080/24p outperforms conventional 35mm "release prints".

That is why Lucas and Cameron went digital.

And now 4K projection is already outshining IMAX 70mm:

In my opinion the split screen comparison showed that 4K projection is equal to or better than 70mm projection in all respects save one. The digital images appeared as sharp or sharper, they appeared to have more contrast in addition to equal or better resolution, and the color saturation and fidelity was equal or better.
http://www.digitalcinemasociety.org/...Newsletter.php

Attack Of The Clones held up when it was upconverted to Imax.
More people complained about how the 35mm elements of the Dark Knight looked grainy when shown on IMAX.

Apparently IMAX film has an image resolution equivalent to about 70 megapixels. Standard 35mm film weighs in at about 10-15 megapixels. When the first scene shot in 35mm began, the difference was stark. Film grain suddenly became visible and the clarity dropped significantly.
http://simonweaver.us/?p=942.