Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[Norbie]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The fact is that the DNR is there on the 2D Blu-ray, so why didn't Lowry - for it is they who did the deed - do their grain replacement thing for the 2D version once they had scrubbed the movie clean ready for 3D-ification? Like I said, Lucas probably preferred the anodyne digital cleanliness of the DNR'ed master. Either that or he was too cheap to spring for a grain replacement pass.

Repllacing the original grain with grain replacement technology is even worse. Either keep it or not.

[HeavyHitter]

I watched most of Phantom Menace last night. I see it as a mixed bag but not bad for a Lucas movie; no question filtering has been applied, but some scenes still look very good. Others look soft. Part of this might be the photography, but some digital manipulation has taken place. Some scenes show some relatively small edge enhancement too which means they might have decided to (over) sharpen the image after removing some of the grain (that still does not make sense to me, but that's what happens in some cases I'm told).

[Roonan]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Wasn't lying, was I?

No (neither did I say so ), but I don't think it was Lowry who added DNR. I believe it was Lucasfilm/ILM.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

What I said was that he probably took a look at the DNR'ed master and decided that it was good enough given the softer look of the movie that immediately follows it. BTW it's all speculation bro, I'm not on the LFL board and I'm betting that you aren't either.

When the Blu-ray discs were printed, the 3D conversion of TPM was already done, and they were already converting AotC. This corroborates my speculation that the DNR was added for the 3D conversions.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And yes, there be grain in Sith, but how does that atone for what was done to Phantom Menace? Answer: it doesn't.

They are all part of the prequels. Why remove grain from one and added it to another?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Norbie

Repllacing the original grain with grain replacement technology is even worse. Either keep it or not.

Oh I agree, but when companies keep going to Lowry a.k.a Reliance to get 'The Treatment' it's something we've got to put up with, because it's an integral part of their famed process. They degrain to isolate pure picture detail, and then regrain according to the customer's specification.

To be fair, they're getting a HECK of a lot better at grain replacement. Compare the floaty globular gunk in the original Star Wars movies to the gorgeous patina of grain in Aliens, with the latter making the uber-bland Phantom Menace all the harder to stomach. It was degrained as per Lowry's process in preparation for the 3D conversion, but someone, somewhere made the decision to not regrain it and it's become a lifeless, plastic-faced facsimile as a result. Clones was also processed in this manner but it was so soft to begin with (as shot) that the processing hasn't made too much of a difference.

As for Sith retaining its grain (and not in a weird frozen kinda way), funnily enough it's the only SW movie NOT to have been fiddled with by Lowry. Cliquez ici: http://www.lowrydigital.com/EPK.pdf

Give it time though, give it time...

[HeavyHitter]

I watched Clones last night and it's disappointing. I mean there seems to be some slight edge enhancement in addition to some sort of filtering happening. Being a digitally filmed movie, I don't see why they had to much so much with the digital files - this should have been a breeze.

[miniroll32]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

...but when companies keep going to Lowry a.k.a Reliance to get 'The Treatment' it's something we've got to put up with, because it's an integral part of their famed process. They degrain to isolate pure picture detail, and then regrain according to the customer's specification.

This process isn't integral, it's simply an option. Reliance is a contract company and works to the requirements of the customer, which is why you'll notice so many different looking movies from their portfolio. They did some work on Close Encounters and it's easily one of the most natural looking products i've yet to see on blu-ray as no DNR has been applied, yet you look at how Disney wanted a pure 'cel-on-background' feel to their classics restorations, and the result is both astonishing to look at, but completely unfaithful.

Reliance take a lot of flack for what's happened with the Star Wars movies, but they weren't the ones making the so-called "creative decisions". Look to Georgie for that.

[Geoff D]

You're quite right, they didn't force themselves on anybody (I don't know of many post houses who do) but the fact remains that certain of their processes had some serious issues with regard to the handling of grain. Just because LFL sanctioned Lowry's work on the 2004 remaster, doesn't mean that I can't lay the blame at Lowry's door for having such a flawed system in the first place.

[Norbie]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You're quite right, they didn't force themselves on anybody (I don't know of many post houses who do) but the fact remains that certain of their processes had some serious issues with regard to the handling of grain. Just because LFL sanctioned Lowry's work on the 2004 remaster, doesn't mean that I can't lay the blame at Lowry's door for having such a flawed system in the first place.

They are a business and the customer is ALWAYS right , so the system is there as an option so that Lowry can continue to make money.

I understand the whole issue of what grain is and what it does, but I'm one of the people who prefer their DNRed work on such releases as the Bonds and the classic Disney films. I'm with Richard Harris when he wrote - "... with the proper tools and the right people behind them, grain can be removed or reduced WITHOUT AFFECTING THE RESOLUTION, DETAIL OR HIGH FREQUENCY INFORMATION." - http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/27...-no-in-blu-ray

And I'll leave it at that since I'm heading of topic....



be nice

[Revolution 9]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I watched Clones last night and it's disappointing. I mean there seems to be some slight edge enhancement in addition to some sort of filtering happening. Being a digitally filmed movie, I don't see why they had to much so much with the digital files - this should have been a breeze.

I was under the impression that AotC was filmed with a softening filter attached to the digital camera.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Revolution 9

I was under the impression that AotC was filmed with a softening filter attached to the digital camera.

It was.

Originally Posted by chip75

From Creating the Worlds of Star Wars: 365 Days by John Knoll.

"Basically, we found that the images we'd recorded on film for Episode I were noticeably softer than what we were getting from the HD cameras on Episodes II and III, so we actually had to "dumb it down" as George says. In some ways the Pro-Mist filters were simply the continuation of a photographic style, since we had previously used them on Episode I; although so much has been printed about digital cameras not having the same resolution as film—it's just not true."

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Norbie

They are a business and the customer is ALWAYS right , so the system is there as an option so that Lowry can continue to make money.

I understand the whole issue of what grain is and what it does, but I'm one of the people who prefer their DNRed work on such releases as the Bonds and the classic Disney films. I'm with Richard Harris when he wrote - "... with the proper tools and the right people behind them, grain can be removed or reduced WITHOUT AFFECTING THE RESOLUTION, DETAIL OR HIGH FREQUENCY INFORMATION." - http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/27...-no-in-blu-ray

And I'll leave it at that since I'm heading of topic....



be nice

It's Robert Harris who said that. But even the great RAH notices Lowry's shitty frozen grain from time to time, and THAT's my problem with their processing. Degrain and regrain all you want, and when it's done right the results are astounding (Aliens), when it's done wrong I feel like throwing my shoe at the TV (Star Wars, certain Bonds, etc).

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Revolution 9

I was under the impression that AotC was filmed with a softening filter attached to the digital camera.

Do you know if these digital cameras are responsible for the slight ringing/EE too?

I watched Revenge of the Sith last night and while it looked excellent, overall, there was a tiny bit of EE noticeable in some scenes.

[BozQ]

AOTC was using the first ever model of the CineAlta Camera. It's not perfect by any means, which explains the soft look. This model was eventually superseded by the model used on ROTS, and subsequently used in many other films.

[Norbie]

Originally Posted by BozQ

AOTC was using the first ever model of the CineAlta Camera. It's not perfect by any means, which explains the soft look. This model was eventually superseded by the model used on ROTS, and subsequently used in many other films.

I guess somebody had to star at the bottom and Lucas decided that it would be him. Without it we wouldn't have the digital cameras they have now. And only recently companies stopped producing "film" cameras.



be nice

[42041]

Originally Posted by Norbie

Without it we wouldn't have the digital cameras they have now.

Of course we would. No one was going "I don't know if digital cinematography has a future" until AOTC came out, they were going "let me wait until the technology is mature". George Lucas simply jumped the gun and other filmmakers happily shot better-looking movies on better technology.

[Blu-21]

Originally Posted by Norbie

I guess somebody had to star at the bottom and Lucas decided that it would be him. Without it we wouldn't have the digital cameras they have now. And only recently companies stopped producing "film" cameras.



be nice

The evolution of digital cinematography is fine, but the bolded is a bad thing.

[earmullet]

I bet you Favreau directs VII.

[brian9229]

Originally Posted by earmullet

I bet you Favreau directs VII.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by Norbie

I guess somebody had to star at the bottom and Lucas decided that it would be him. Without it we wouldn't have the digital cameras they have now. And only recently companies stopped producing "film" cameras.



be nice

Huh? Be nice? I'm didn't say anything bad now, didn't I? It was just mere facts.

I'm not overly bothered by digital or film cameras. I just think it's great that filmmakers have so many ways to shoot a movie. How they want to shoot it is entirely up to them. What they should do most importantly is to shoot a good movie. Be it good story, or just plain entertainment. As long as your audience doesn't leave the theater.

Admittedly, I do have a slight biasness towards digital films. Being an ex film student, we're always grateful that we have an affordable means to produce a film. And we believe people like George Lucas and James Cameron helps stimulate that growth in technology.

[The Great Owl]

I bought Star Wars: The Complete Saga last month when Best Buy had their $69 sale. I watched all six films in a two-day time span a few days later, starting with the prequel trilogy and ending with Return of the Jedi.

I have no complaints about the picture quality of any of these films, and they all looked spectacular to my eyes. Revenge of the Sith and The Empire Strikes Back looked the best, but they're all superb Blu-rays.

The story changes by Lucas ("Noooooooo!") are a minor annoyance, but these changes not dealbreakers. These movies are just fun popcorn flicks across the board either way.

I initially intended to hold on to my limited edition copies of the original Star Wars trilogy for the theatrical versions, but the picture quality is so bad in those editions that I ended up trading them in. The Blu-rays are more than sufficient when I revisit these movies.