Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[dvdmike]

Thought clones was shot at 1440x1080 then cropped?

Plus the scans of the AOTC 35mm version that popped up years back looked stunning

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by fitprod

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

fitprod

Still photography.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Eny-

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.

There could be a mild benefit in color saturation and maybe a fraction more in sharpness.

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

I don't know why this question is directed at me, since I never mentioned that they would need to be "restored".

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

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?

Exactly.
Again it's another example of a very niche section of the fanbase that will forever feel as if they've been wronged by Lucas, and will spend the rest of their lives stomping their feet. Hardly indicitive of the overall Star Wars(I-VI) fanbase.
Obviously the proof is in the pudding, and we'll just have to wait and see what Disney does, as the ball is in their court.

[welcometothepartypal]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

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?

Most people I know either 1. Have never seen them and can't be bothered or 2. have seen them and consider them "ok" or "bad". I'm not siding with either party because it's all subjective, but when someone say's the above quote, I have to say that's been my experience too.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by Thomas Guycott

That is in fact what I was saying.

No, you didn't.

Originally Posted by Thomas Guycott

1080x2048 at 2.35:1, specifically.

2K scope results in a resolution of 2048x858. Star Wars was recorded in a maximum 1080p resolution. At 2.35 aspect ratio, that's only 1920x817.

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Thought clones was shot at 1440x1080 then cropped?

Plus the scans of the AOTC 35mm version that popped up years back looked stunning

You know what? Good catch.
The F900 did have a 1920x1080 sensor. But the HDCAM format only allowed a maximum resolution of 1440x1080, with 1.33x pixel aspect ratio. And then cropped to 2.35. So that's should be 1440x817.

The F950 used in Sith uses HDCAM SR format, and did not have this limitation.

Edit: In fact, I just remembered the F900 shoots and records in 24PsF. Not even true 24p. I can't remember the F950.

But that was a long time ago. You got to give tops to George for the courage to push digital technology. We've definitely come a long way since then. If it weren't for him, many indie filmmakers wouldn't be able to express themselves without breaking the bank.

Anyhow, I have come to believe that camera resolution is not the be all end all specifications to produce good quality images. Look at the ARRI Alexa. It has a maximum 2.8K resolution, but the image would almost tell you otherwise.

[Galactus123]

They should release the movies separately also. There is nothing wrong with the box-sets but I would like to own them separately. They should release the original untouched versions on Blu-Ray with the original posters as covers:

http://www.mtv.com/news/photos/s/sta...0504/SW4_1.jpg
http://movieposters.2038.net/p/The-E...rikes-Back.jpg
http://www.moviegoods.com/Assets/pro...633.1020.A.jpg

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Scarface32

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.

A lot of films shot in 4k have 2k rendered effects, so most blockbusters are in the same boat.

Lucas isn't psychic, he used the best equipment he had at the time, as digital gave him the added versatility and the ability to see what had been shot seconds after shooting it.

The new technology used in the prequels allowed Lucas to use different takes and composite them together, something that wasn't possible with the originals. The actors performances in those movies often came second, if R2-D2 did his scene right, they'd print that take.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by chip75

A lot of films shot in 4k have 2k rendered effects, so most blockbusters are in the same boat.

Lucas isn't psychic, he used the best equipment he had at the time, as digital gave him the added versatility and the ability to see what had been shot seconds after shooting it.

The new technology used in the prequels allowed Lucas to use different takes and composite them together, something that wasn't possible with the originals. The actors performances in those movies often came second, if R2-D2 did his scene right, they'd print that take.

Not to mention it just sped up the post-production and allowed it to be done cheaper and more efficiently since practically every shot as some kind of CGI element in it. Shooting a film like AOTC or ROTS on film would have made it so much more difficult and time consuming. A decade ago, Lucas was in a different era of moviemaking and it's only now that many filmmakers and studios are catching up to where he was.

[Eny-]

Originally Posted by chip75

A lot of films shot in 4k have 2k rendered effects, so most blockbusters are in the same boat.

The big difference here is that the effects can be redone at 4k (eg). They had to re-shot the movies again for 4k

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Galactus123

They should release the movies separately also. There is nothing wrong with the box-sets but I would like to own them separately. They should release the original untouched versions on Blu-Ray with the original posters as covers:

http://www.mtv.com/news/photos/s/sta...0504/SW4_1.jpg
http://movieposters.2038.net/p/The-E...rikes-Back.jpg
http://www.moviegoods.com/Assets/pro...633.1020.A.jpg

Would be nice but below is actually the initial poster (A) for the first movie. However, I actually own both.

http://www.movieposter.com/poster/MP...Star_Wars.html

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Eny-

The big difference here is that the effects can be redone at 4k

Some VFX studios don't even exist anymore (the folks who did Life of Pi, Rhythm 'N Hues, are a good example). How would they re-render VFX for assets that no longer exist?

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Eny-

The big difference here is that the effects can be redone at 4k (eg). They had to re-shot the movies again for 4k

But can you ever see the point where New Line / MGM look at The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit movies and decide to recreate all the SFX? I doubt they'd do that for 4k releases. Maybe 8k but then the 4k digital movies will be in the same boat as Episodes II and III, a digital generation behind.

[Kryptonic]

4k is never going to take off anyway as a format on disc, so we have little to worry about.

[Gamma_Winstead]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

4k is never going to take off anyway as a format on disc, so we have little to worry about.

Blu-ray itself still hasn't become a standard. It makes me laugh that people think anothe disk based format that offers little visual upgrade would actually be a thing.

If the difference between 480 and 1080 AND lossless can't sell people, why would 4k?

[brian9229]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

4k is never going to take off anyway as a format on disc, so we have little to worry about.

We will see for sure this year.
http://www.whathifi.com/news/4k-blu-...scs-will-exist

[Eny-]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Some VFX studios don't even exist anymore (the folks who did Life of Pi, Rhythm 'N Hues, are a good example). How would they re-render VFX for assets that no longer exist?

Why do they no longer exist? Did they erase them? The company no longer exist but the assets are, no doubt, with Fox (in the case of Life of Pi). In the digital realm they just have to scale the VFX. They don't need the original VFX studio to do that. If they can do that with VFX on celluloid why couldn't they do it with digital?

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

4k is never going to take off anyway as a format on disc, so we have little to worry about.

A Blu-ray standard for 4k on disc was already approved a few months ago. I agree with you though. Blu-ray is already a niche and a hard sell compared with DVD.

I'm not upgrading as I don't see myself getting a 100" TV just so I can get the full potential of 4k.

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by chip75

A lot of films shot in 4k have 2k rendered effects, so most blockbusters are in the same boat.

Lucas isn't psychic, he used the best equipment he had at the time, as digital gave him the added versatility and the ability to see what had been shot seconds after shooting it.

The new technology used in the prequels allowed Lucas to use different takes and composite them together, something that wasn't possible with the originals. The actors performances in those movies often came second, if R2-D2 did his scene right, they'd print that take.

I'm not saying Lucas was wrong for using digital, I'm explaining to Kryptonic why film is superior to digital (something he is failing to understand).

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by Gamma_Winstead

Blu-ray itself still hasn't become a standard. It makes me laugh that people think anothe disk based format that offers little visual upgrade would actually be a thing.

If the difference between 480 and 1080 AND lossless can't sell people, why would 4k?

BD has a max of 2 layers now but the specification allows for more layers. There's no reason why a new disc format is needed. You could make a 4 or 5 layer Blu-ray Disc and have it output true 4K. The only thing that might have to change is the player, to be able to read more layers. But the disc format itself wouldn't have to change.

Also, it's not a "disk" it's a disc. Disk is short for diskette, like floppy disks. The round discs, such as CD, DVD, BD, and even frisbees are discs. In the Olympics, they don't throw disks, they throw discs.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Scarface32

BD has a max of 2 layers now but the specification allows for more layers. There's no reason why a new disc format is needed. You could make a 4 or 5 layer Blu-ray Disc and have it output true 4K. The only thing that might have to change is the player, to be able to read more layers. But the disc format itself wouldn't have to change.

Also, it's not a "disk" it's a disc. Disk is short for diskette, like floppy disks. The round discs, such as CD, DVD, BD, and even frisbees are discs. In the Olympics, they don't throw disks, they throw discs.

I have discs with more than two layer's now