Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[kenkraly2004]

Originally Posted by Fanboyz

From Star Wars to Jedi was a great documentary, hope it is in the box.

Also don't forget The Making of Star Wars , Special Effects : The Making Of The Empire Strikes Back and Classic Creatures : The Making Of Return Of The Jedi. Those are good documentary's as well. Hopefully those Doc's are in the box set too.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by ObiTrentKenobi

-not including the Unaltered Original Trilogy in Remastered High Definition (the only alteration I will accept), at least as a bonus feature

We've already been told it's not going to be included.
And just from the number of discs in the set, it should be clear it won't be.

[kenkraly2004]

Originally Posted by Beast

We've already been told it's not going to be included.
And just from the number of discs in the set, it should be clear it won't be.

Correct.

[Dr.Robotnik]

Originally Posted by Fanboyz

From Star Wars to Jedi was a great documentary, hope it is in the box.

Yeah i agree.

[danny_boy]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

Yeah, that's the sticking point.

Yes, we can compare the actual print that lands in your local theater - but that's not the print that scans are made of. So yes, digital projection in theaters may be better - it's certainly cleaner and more fool-proof, that's for sure.

But when you go back to the original materials, film is still the best method to get the best results. Cameron is all over digital, like Lucas, because he doesn't make live action movies anymore it seems. He makes animated spectacles with live action inserted in. That's not an insult or demeaning them, it's simply pointing out that they are what they are. Having to take the live action footage is more a nuisance to them than anything else, and of course the digital footage is easier to manipulate right out of the box, and already looks digital, so painting digital over digital often comes out better than painting digital over film.

The problem with Ep II and Ep III is that Lucas made a huge boo-boo in the preservation of his films for future generations, and even in anthropological terms. In the near term (say the next 50-100 years) doubtless new ways to experience filmed entertainment (for lack of a better reference, "holodeck" type tech, at least in visual terms). The resolution of Episode II is forever locked at 1080p. That's going to limit it's visual quality no matter what tech is invented - the data simply isn't there to extract past 1080p.

Now, in terms of real historic preservation (think about how we know what we know about ancient Greece - because of what they left behind in terms of artifacts). Modern society has little that would be left behind if not explicitly preserved. That's why digital preservation is still a wonderful thing (saving things that can't be saved) but also it's downfall. It's all a gamble, because if we end up exclusively preserving everything digitally, should any number of History-channel future end-games happened (at least for modern humanity) it would be lost. When the polar shift happens (could be tomorrow, could be in 3 million years, we have no idea) and electronic devices cease working there goes digital, for example.

Yes, that's way beyond the scope of these forums and "crazy" talk, BUT...filmed media as an artform is so young that people are already thinking about these things. We won't be around to see it but someday, sometime, people would be going through rubble and they are much more likely to find a few frames of physical film that somehow survived intact than they will a magnetic-based or solid-state technical device.

So he's kinda screwed with Ep II and III - so those people who truly detest the prequels will get 2/3 of the last laugh, . Personally, although there are quite a few things I would change about the prequels (starting with the fact they were prequels at all - I would have much preferred Han/Luke/Leia in their 50's and 60's doing another adventure) it does have a few of the best action sequences and I'd really be mad if the Yoda/Dooku duel wasn't preserved forever.

You make good points.
But you will be surprised at how malleable digital HD can be.

These posters describe on different forums their experience of seeing Attack Of The Clones on IMAX back in 2002:

Wed Nov 06, 2002 6:40 am
It was in 4x3, or at least something less than 2.35:1 or whatever it was in the theater. The opening shots with the senator's cruiser landing on Coursant are missing the left and right expanses of cloud that were in the analog and DLP versions.

I didn't notice any pixelation.

http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtop...64114&start=40

11-05-2002, 01:21 AM
I saw Attack of the Clones on an IMAX screen at the Smithsonian (http://www.si.edu/imax/) on Friday. I could make out the pores on the face of Natalie Portman. I'm still giddy.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/.../t-142595.html

12/03/02 10:15 PM
I just saw Attack of the Clones on IMAX and here is my question:
The movie was shot in digital (something like 1920 X 1080 pixels I'm told) and transfered to the 70mm Imax format. by my calculations (1080 lines divided by an 80ft. screen) each line should be roughly 1 inch high. But I looked and damned if I could find ANY pixelization, vertical or horizontal. How do they do this?
http://forums.howwhatwhy.com/showfla...-222100&fpart=.

Now this poster noticed some colour issues as opposed to pixelization:

04-28-05, 02:01 AM

In the last DLP/Christie Digital presentation I witnessed -- which was Attack of the Clones in 2002 -- the image had a vertically-ribbed pattern to it, especially noticable in areas of uniform colour, like the blue in the end credits. Maybe I was sitting too close
http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/.../t-531925.html.


Even Lucas himself conducted tests when he blew up 1080 images over and above conventional screen sizes:


Lucas revealed that CineAlta is not only more easily manipulated but can also be blown up more than film. “We’ve done tests [where] we are blowing [digital images] up 50-60 percent on top of it already being blown up to be widescreen and getting an absolutely beautiful image. We had to go a long way before the [digital] image starts to fall apart… We were all shocked, even the guys at ILM.”

http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/content/id...ticlesection=2

[Deciazulado]

Is interesting people having to explain/defend 1080, when everybody sees it everyday, from BDs and 2K DIs on movies at the theaters

[the sordid sentinel]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

My hopes are rather high.

The mistakes of the 2004 releases have been well-documented, and while some may be chalked up to "creative choice", Lucas *has* been showing lately that he's starting to get that fan criticism isn't all dismissible and has conceded on a few points.

To be honest, I think the guy knows a lot rides on this Blu-release, because a large portion of the Blu audience are rabid Star Wars fans. Although I'm sure this set will sell a few Blu-ray players, Blu-adoption is still rather slow still and for Joe Wal-Mart who already owns the $30 set of DVDs, it's not going to change the world. So he's going to be counting on all of us preordering and selling it - making a long story short, I think he's going to try to do right by us.

Then again, as you said, most of us would buy it anyway just because it's in HD - so what do I know.

I really hope you are right. The initial press release specifically said that Lucas is personally overseeing this release, so for better or worse we know who the buck stops with once the final product is in homes. Depending on who you choose to believe, the '04 release was rushed and Lucas' involvement was minimal. I didn't think that release was the travesty that some claim, but there are definite problems that need to be addressed.

[kenkraly2004]

Originally Posted by dawgdaze37

I really hope you are right. The initial press release specifically said that Lucas is personally overseeing this release, so for better or worse we know who the buck stops with once the final product is in homes. Depending on who you choose to believe, the '04 release was rushed and Lucas' involvement was minimal. I didn't think that release was the travesty that some claim, but there are definite problems that need to be addressed.

Agreed their a lot of reason's it was rushed some say it was intensionally rush and some believe because GL was working on episode 3 at the time and their was no time for a proper restoration of the SE.

[danny_boy]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Is interesting people having to explain/defend 1080, when everybody sees it everyday, from BDs and 2K DIs on movies at the theaters

Hehe
The generation that grew up watching Star Wars in the cinema(I am one of them) would watch films on TV's like this:



and watch VHS:



Then when we went to the Cinema to see either 35 or 70 mm presentations
we would be blown away:



Which is the point.
For a long time cinema only had to compete with crappy VHS and Cathode Ray TV's.

Its a different ball game now!

[42041]

Originally Posted by danny_boy

These posters describe on different forums their experience of seeing Attack Of The Clones on IMAX back in 2002:

I've never seen an IMAX blow-up myself, but while IMAX's upscaling algorithms may produce an image without obvious pixelization and whatnot, I seriously doubt the 1080p-sourced material would compare in fidelity to something shot on actual 65mm/15perf negative like The Dark Knight. Even some DVDs can look tolerable when upscaled but ultimately you can't create resolution that wasn't there.

[42041]

I'll also add that my local movie theater has converted to 4K sony projectors, and that I don't see pixelization on movies mastered at 2K resolution or shot on 1080p digital cameras. Yet I have no trouble seeing it on my 1080p plasma from comparable viewing distances for the screen size. That suggests to me that the projector lenses in movie theaters are a major limiting factor for >2K resolution at cinemas. Or I need new glasses.

[Canada]

I think I speak for a lot of the people on this forum when I say that September 16 2011 can not come soon enough.

[danny_boy]

Originally Posted by 42041

I've never seen an IMAX blow-up myself, but while IMAX's upscaling algorithms may produce an image without obvious pixelization and whatnot, I seriously doubt the 1080p-sourced material would compare in fidelity to something shot on actual 65mm/15perf negative like The Dark Knight. Even some DVDs can look tolerable when upscaled but ultimately you can't create resolution that wasn't there.

Agreed, but the discrepancy may not be as great as you think:

Larry Thorpe practically pioneered digital HD:

FSTD: Is high-definition-to-15-perf 70mm as good as the real thing?

Thorpe: It’s not in any way a claim that we are as good. We are not. But we’re surprisingly good. If it isn’t quite the quality of a 65mm negative, and it’s not, by the time you get to that 70mm print, it’s still going to be remarkably good.
http://www.fromscripttodvd.com/filme...sion_fixed.htm

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Is interesting people having to explain/defend 1080, when everybody sees it everyday, from BDs and 2K DIs on movies at the theaters

Quite.

Originally Posted by 42041

I've never seen an IMAX blow-up myself, but while IMAX's upscaling algorithms may produce an image without obvious pixelization and whatnot, I seriously doubt the 1080p-sourced material would compare in fidelity to something shot on actual 65mm/15perf negative like The Dark Knight. Even some DVDs can look tolerable when upscaled but ultimately you can't create resolution that wasn't there.

Sure. But you're still thinking about upscaling in low-def terms. DVD rarely upscales well because of inherent flaws like EE and macroblocking, yet I'd wager that crisp, clean motion-picture-quality 1080p video upscales a heck of lot better than that.

In the simplest possible terms, no, you can't get any more detail from something shot in 1080p. But it's the filmmaker's learned opinion that these 1080p images are far more flexible and 'embiggenable' when it comes to upscaling for future use. And just as films finished on a 2K DI would need to have special effects redone for 4K, the exact same thing is true for Lucas' HD-shot Star Wars films! They're mostly CG after all so what's the problem?

If 1080p holds up in 15/70 IMAX, then future '1080p upscale/4K effects' hybrids should look very good indeed. They won't look like, say, Lawrence Of Arabia given an 8K scan, but then most films won't...

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by danny_boy

You make good points.
But you will be surprised at how malleable digital HD can be.

These posters describe on different forums their experience of seeing Attack Of The Clones on IMAX back in 2002:

Wed Nov 06, 2002 6:40 am
It was in 4x3, or at least something less than 2.35:1 or whatever it was in the theater. The opening shots with the senator's cruiser landing on Coursant are missing the left and right expanses of cloud that were in the analog and DLP versions.

I didn't notice any pixelation.

http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtop...64114&start=40

11-05-2002, 01:21 AM
I saw Attack of the Clones on an IMAX screen at the Smithsonian (http://www.si.edu/imax/) on Friday. I could make out the pores on the face of Natalie Portman. I'm still giddy.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/.../t-142595.html

12/03/02 10:15 PM
I just saw Attack of the Clones on IMAX and here is my question:
The movie was shot in digital (something like 1920 X 1080 pixels I'm told) and transfered to the 70mm Imax format. by my calculations (1080 lines divided by an 80ft. screen) each line should be roughly 1 inch high. But I looked and damned if I could find ANY pixelization, vertical or horizontal. How do they do this?
http://forums.howwhatwhy.com/showfla...-222100&fpart=.

Now this poster noticed some colour issues as opposed to pixelization:

04-28-05, 02:01 AM

In the last DLP/Christie Digital presentation I witnessed -- which was Attack of the Clones in 2002 -- the image had a vertically-ribbed pattern to it, especially noticable in areas of uniform colour, like the blue in the end credits. Maybe I was sitting too close
http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/.../t-531925.html.


Even Lucas himself conducted tests when he blew up 1080 images over and above conventional screen sizes:


Lucas revealed that CineAlta is not only more easily manipulated but can also be blown up more than film. “We’ve done tests [where] we are blowing [digital images] up 50-60 percent on top of it already being blown up to be widescreen and getting an absolutely beautiful image. We had to go a long way before the [digital] image starts to fall apart… We were all shocked, even the guys at ILM.”

http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/content/id...ticlesection=2

Thanks a lot for posting this. I tried to find some reactions from people's IMAX viewings of AOTC, but could never find any.
Very interesting indeed!

Originally Posted by Canada

I think I speak for a lot of the people on this forum when I say that September 16 2011 can not come soon enough.

Why? What's so special about September 16 this year?

[jala12]

^^^

Why, the Star Wars blus of course.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

Why? What's so special about September 16 this year?

It's my Birthday. And George Lucas knows it.

[Dr.Robotnik]

It will be here faster than we know it.

[ObiTrentKenobi]

Originally Posted by Beast

We've already been told it's not going to be included.
And just from the number of discs in the set, it should be clear it won't be.

Really? No UOT?

Where did this news come from that it won't be included?

I guess I'll just have to wait another year or two until there is another box set of them, just like they did with DVD.

[octagon]

Fox Executive Discusses Blu-ray Plans

The remastering of the movies has been performed by Lucasfilm and will offer "the most recently updated versions of the movies," with "even more enhancements to the picture quality." When asked about Fox's answer to the fans that want to see the three original versions released, Marcais replied: "The versions that are being released are closest to George Lucas' vision. Other than that, no comment."