Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Yeah, like Stanley Kubrick.

Uh, no. If Kubrick got what he wanted in take one, there was only a take one. If there were 47 takes, it's because Kubrick finally got what he wanted on take 47.

[Thomas Guycott]

Originally Posted by BozQ

Lucas shot the two movies in cropped 1080p, no anamorphic lenses. The resolution for Clones and Sith is 1920x817.

That is in fact what I was saying.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

The Phantom Menace sure would benefit. It's a DNR mess at the moment.

Trouble is there's only one shot in the whole show which wasn't manipulated digitally, i.e. practically the entire movie is locked to 2K, which is the resolution of the VFX work. Doing a 4K rebuild by rescanning the raw negative and upscaling any VFX shots (as per current 4K origination) wouldn't get us anywhere in terms of spatial resolution because 99.999% of the movie is basically VFX of some description, ergo it's essentially fixed at 2K. That said, there'd be no complaints if they gave us a new 2K master without the ****ing DNR!

Still, I do find it funny that so many people give Lucas hell for shooting eps II and III in HD (albeit with superior lenses, filters, colour sampling and bit depth than consumer gear) and yet what resolution has become the DI finish of choice, even now? 2K. Why? Because it has proved to be good enough.

Yeah, this means that, on the face of it, true 4K rebuilds of Lucas' prequels are impossible. But most VFX is still finished at 2K, even for new 4K movies, and what are Lucas' prequels almost entirely composed of? VFX shots - so even in the brave new 4K world the prequels would mostly be upscaled anyway!

And besides, spacial resolution is the tip of the iceberg as regards 4K. Wider colour gamuts, higher dynamic range, higher bit depth and better colour sampling could make a marked difference between the same 2K source on 8-bit 4:2:0 1080p Blu-ray mastered for Rec.709 and a 12-bit 4:2:2 2160p (upscaled) 4K Blu-ray mastered for Rec.2020.

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Trouble is there's only one shot in the whole show which wasn't manipulated digitally, i.e. practically the entire movie is locked to 2K, which is the resolution of the VFX work. Doing a 4K rebuild by rescanning the raw negative and upscaling any VFX shots (as per current 4K origination) wouldn't get us anywhere in terms of spatial resolution because 99.999% of the movie is basically VFX of some description, ergo it's essentially fixed at 2K. That said, there'd be no complaints if they gave us a new 2K master without the ****ing DNR!

Still, I do find it funny that so many people give Lucas hell for shooting eps II and III in HD (albeit with superior lenses, filters, colour sampling and bit depth than consumer gear) and yet what resolution has become the DI finish of choice, even now? 2K. Why? Because it has proved to be good enough.

Yeah, this means that, on the face of it, true 4K rebuilds of Lucas' prequels are impossible. But most VFX is still finished at 2K, even for new 4K movies, and what are Lucas' prequels almost entirely composed of? VFX shots - so even in the brave new 4K world the prequels would mostly be upscaled anyway!

And besides, spacial resolution is the tip of the iceberg as regards 4K. Wider colour gamuts, higher dynamic range, higher bit depth and better colour sampling could make a marked difference between the same 2K source on 8-bit 4:2:0 1080p Blu-ray mastered for Rec.709 and a 12-bit 4:2:2 2160p (upscaled) 4K Blu-ray mastered for Rec.2020.

This, of course, goes on the assumption that anyone ever wants to watch the prequels ever again.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

This, of course, goes on the assumption that anyone ever wants to watch the prequels ever again.

Disney will make sure of it.

[franken_psycho1990]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

Largely, I think it's because he's not a terribly good director.

Any good director wouldn't edit their movies to f#ck after many years.

[harry keogh]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

and what are Lucas' prequels almost entirely composed of?

Shit.

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Disney will make sure of it.

Actually, no they won't.

If you look at the product output from Disney since they acquired the franchise (and I've been paying VERY close attention), they've almost completely downplayed the entire existence of the prequels. For example, look at the 2015 calendars they have planned: they're all centered around the TV show OR it's 100% filled with imagery from the OT. Since they're smart, they're wise to ignore them since most fans and the general public mock and ridicule the prequels any chance they can.

Another example:
http://www.theforce.net/story/front/...ogy_157421.asp
I don't believe any books are currently on the schedule that focus on or integrate the PT.

Originally Posted by harry keogh

Shit.

[Leviathan]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

Actually, no they won't.

If you look at the product output from Disney since they acquired the franchise (and I've been paying VERY close attention), they've almost completely downplayed the entire existence of the prequels. For example, look at the 2015 calendars they have planned: they're all centered around the TV show OR it's 100% filled with imagery from the OT. Since they're smart, they're wise to ignore them since most fans and the general public mock and ridicule the prequels any chance they can.

You can even kind of see this in their decision to indefinitely postpone, if not outright cancel, the 3D re-releases of Clones and Sith (even though the 3D Phatom Menace made money). And of course, like you said, cancelling Clone Wars for the post-prequel Rebels.

Even WRT the new movie, you have Abrams talking about location shooting and practical effects and Lawrence Kasdan being brought on board. There's no reason to divulge stuff like that unless you're courting the types of folks who disliked the prequels.

That might be Disney's greatest incentive for releasing the OOT; it'd generate the kind of buzz money can't buy, just the thing to get people to buy the same movies again.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Yeah, like Stanley Kubrick.


He shot digital because he was sick of the limitations of film. He has stated so dozens of times in interviews. He wanted a medium that could be manipulated indefinitely without losing quality. Lucas saw digital as the future and he was correct. He was just one of the first.

While he was right that digital was the future he was wrong to shoot Clones and Sith on digital. Locking those films at 1080 was absurd. 4K tv's are already on the market which means Clones and Sith's original sources are already outdated visually and inferior to home video resolution.

[Nick666]

I'm sure that when 4k will become standard home video resolution , Geroge Lucas will redo all the cgi and vfx at 4k , and if clones and revenge were shot in 2k , he will just cgi everything , and add some cgi hamsters while he's at it. Not that I would complain about that.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Nick666

I'm sure that when 4k will become standard home video resolution , Geroge Lucas will redo all the cgi and vfx at 4k , and if clones and revenge were shot in 2k , he will just cgi everything , and add some cgi hamsters while he's at it. Not that I would complain about that.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

Uh, no. If Kubrick got what he wanted in take one, there was only a take one. If there were 47 takes, it's because Kubrick finally got what he wanted on take 47.

This from the director who spent how long shooting Eyes Wide Shut?


He was famous for a billion redundant takes, give or take a couple.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

Actually, no they won't.

If you look at the product output from Disney since they acquired the franchise (and I've been paying VERY close attention), they've almost completely downplayed the entire existence of the prequels. For example, look at the 2015 calendars they have planned: they're all centered around the TV show OR it's 100% filled with imagery from the OT. Since they're smart, they're wise to ignore them since most fans and the general public mock and ridicule the prequels any chance they can.

It's not coincidence that they're focusing a lot of the marketing right now on the timeline consisting of Episode 4-6 and beyond since the Episode VII and Rebels take place after those episodes. Hardly indicative of anything. Just because you and a vocal minority don't like the Prequels, doesn't mean millions of others don't.

"The general public mocks the prequels." What? Do you ever go outside?

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Yeah, like Stanley Kubrick.


He shot digital because he was sick of the limitations of film. He has stated so dozens of times in interviews. He wanted a medium that could be manipulated indefinitely without losing quality. Lucas saw digital as the future and he was correct. He was just one of the first.

Digital is inferior to film. Think of it this way, I can take a negative of a photograph, no bigger than a posting stamp, and blow it up to the size of a billboard. Try taking a digital photo the size of a postage stamp, and do the same thing. It can't be done, and you know it.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Scarface32

Digital is inferior to film. Think of it this way, I can take a negative of a photograph, no bigger than a posting stamp, and blow it up to the size of a billboard. Try taking a digital photo the size of a postage stamp, and do the same thing. It can't be done, and you know it.

As far as I know, they don't shoot films using still photography. And theater screens are the size of billboards. At this point, 99.999% of people can't tell the difference between digital and film when digital tries to replicate a filmlike appearance, like Skyfall for instance. If I hadn't read that it was shot digitally, I would have just assumed it was shot on film because of its appearance.

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

As far as I know, they don't shoot films using still photography. And theater screens are the size of billboards. At this point, 99.999% of people can't tell the difference between digital and film when digital tries to replicate a filmlike appearance, like Skyfall for instance. If I hadn't read that it was shot digitally, I would have just assumed it was shot on film because of its appearance.

You missed the point entirely. Going from a small photo to a large billboard is a metaphor for going from 1080p video to 4K in the future. You can't scale up to 4K if a movie shot digitally was shot at a lower resolution. And Lucas shot episode II and III at 1080p. That means when a new 4K format is introduced to take advantage of the 4K TVs, Star Wars II and III will either have to miss out on the party, or look like shit blown up to 4K.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Scarface32

You missed the point. Going from a small photo to a large billboard is a metaphor for going from 1080p video to 4K in the future. You can't scale up a movie shot digitally unless it was originally shot at 4K. And Lucas shot episode II and III at 1080p. That means when a new 4K format is introduced to take advantage of the 4K TVs, Star Wars II and III will either have to miss out of the party, or look like shit blown up to 4K.

I'm pretty sure they use 2k masters and blow them up to 4k all the time and no one really notices the difference. Someone more technically inclined can fill in the blanks, but I'm pretty sure this occurs quite often.

And going from a small photograph to a 40 foot screen is not the same thing as going from 2k to 4k, where the difference is negligible unless perhaps it's on a very large screen.

[fitprod]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

As far as I know, they don't shoot films using still photography.

What is film but 24 still frames played within 1 second?

fitprod

[Eny-]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Clones and Sith were shot in 1080p, so there would only be mild improvement in a 4k release for those two films.

That doesn't make any sense.

1) If they were shot in 1080p, why would they upscale it to 4k? No only there is no benefit in that but could also introduce artifacts to the image.

2) Also why would they have to "restore" them since the movies were shot in digital? There is nothing to restore...

Movies today are restored in 4K or 8K because 35mm and 70mm film has more resolution than that, so a restoration done in those resolutions yield the best results.