Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[Geoff D]

Elvis, you're so intent on proving your point that you're missing the obvious: where did the finished analog 35mm negative, inclusive of VFX, come from? You are surely aware, having worked in film, that before the advent of the digital intermediate any CG shots were recorded out to 35mm for inclusion into the conformed negative cut?

The difference here is that Phantom Menace did not have a few dozen or a few hundred CG shots slipped in amongst mostly first generation negative material, but virtually every frame of the film has some sort of digital effect, some 2000 shots in all, so there is practically no first generation camera negative contained in that 1999 negative: it's all derived from 2K film-outs. Do you see what we're driving at? You can scan those film-out elements all day long but you're not going to resolve 4K from them because they've been recorded out from the 2K finals.

[Geoff D]

Oh, and at 14:38 he says FILM-OUT TAPES, not "film outtakes negatives". Just FYI.

I'm not sure why "two different grades" is some sort of smoking gun either as to which master is better. The interviewer actually states that you need a different grade for 3D owing to the fact you're basically wearing a kind of filter over your eyes, this is 3D 101. So when they went back to the ungraded film-out tapes - ungraded because they were intended to go through a conventional photochemical grade - to prepare the new master they had to time it differently for theatrical 3D than they would have to for 2D Blu-ray. Again, this is modern filmmaking 101: theatrical 3D is limited to 4.5fL or 7fL brightness in conventional theaters while home HD video is intended for 29fL or 100 nits, so one grade CANNOT be the same as the other.

[BladeRunner2007]

Popped in Attack of the Clones today.... god, I couldn't even sit 10 minutes through it. What an awful clusterf***. Literally, the only good thing about this movie is John Williams music but George butchered his score becasue of the f*cked up editing This movie hasn't aged well at all. It looks SO much like a PS2 video game. The worst Star Wars movie of them all imo.

[ElvisForever]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Elvis, you're so intent on proving your point that you're missing the obvious: where did the finished analog 35mm negative, inclusive of VFX, come from? You are surely aware, having worked in film, that before the advent of the digital intermediate any CG shots were recorded out to 35mm for inclusion into the conformed negative cut?

The difference here is that Phantom Menace did not have a few dozen or a few hundred CG shots slipped in amongst mostly first generation negative material, but virtually every frame of the film has some sort of digital effect, some 2000 shots in all, so there is practically no first generation camera negative contained in that 1999 negative: it's all derived from 2K film-outs. Do you see what we're driving at? You can scan those film-out elements all day long but you're not going to resolve 4K from them because they've been recorded out from the 2K finals.

Lets get to brass tacks. The DVD's were from a scan of the IP. The IP was made from the original negative. The original negative was used for the 3D film even down to using "outtakes" elements.

We can argue all day about what resolution it was scanned at, but what is no argument is that the DVD/VHS/LD are inferior because they came from a scan of the IP. This is because the color grading and all that had come together.

Digital or not, at some point you process it to the negative which means it has to get there by Digital matting (1999 processing). Maybe we need to go back to film making 101, but I assure you it isn't a "scan" and the prints are made from that.

He clearly says the IP was made optically from the negative. The negative is processed ANALOG.

[Geoff D]

Dude, seriously: Knoll says "FILM-OUT TAPES" not "FILM OUTTAKES". But you're hearing what you want to hear at this point, you're carrying on with your own narrative instead of actually listening to what people have to say and addressing those points.

I can only say the same thing so many times. I tried, guys.

[ElvisForever]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Dude, seriously: Knoll says "FILM-OUT TAPES" not "FILM OUTTAKES". But you're hearing what you want to hear at this point, you're carrying on with your own narrative instead of actually listening to what people have to say and addressing those points.

I can only say the same thing so many times. I tried, guys.

Have you never made a mistake in your life? I truly thought he said OUTTAKES. He was referring to the original negative. Does this absolutely mean that they were digitally scanned first and made from that as opposed to conventional matte digital printing at the time?

In the end we have one issue.

He states that:

1. "Filmed out a shot" (analog)
2. "went through conventional negative cut" (still analog)
3. "an optically timed IP was made from that" (still analog)
4. "then the master printing negatives were made from that timed IP" (maybe digital, maybe analog)
5. "everything you saw in the theater was two generations down from the original" (original could absolutely refer to the negative cut master or even the filmed out shot)
6. home video "came from scanning in that timed IP"

So the question is this, what exactly hit the theaters in the screening room if there was no matte digital work going on? Were they watching it with no effects? You really think that is likely??

If we are saying that the bluray is no better than that IP than fine. But what I don't get is why you think a bluray which is downcaled from a "Film-out" is going to be the same as a straight scan of a theatrical print which could possibly be a straight analog print from the the Optically timed IP master.

When he stated he went back to the "Film Out" tapes, I admit full on he lost me. Not so much that I can't grasp that the film prints came from a lower quality "film out digital tape", but rather it may have made for less quality when no transfer was needed if it was printed normally.

You can do all the "I tried" you want, but until we get this nailed down, it is all conjecture.

[Geoff D]

Try this:

1) The 35mm film is shot & developed as per normal.

2) The 35mm negative is scanned into the digital realm in order to have the extensive CG VFX applied to it. The camera negative itself is then vaulted.

3) That "digital negative", if you like, is completed at 2K resolution (like how the vast majority of motion pictures still are today) and is stored on a professional archival format such as LTO tape.

4) Those tapes are used as the source for filming out the 2K-finished VFX scenes, all 2000 of them and virtually every frame of the film, back to 35mm negative as per the conventions of the time (this being 1997-1999, there's no theatrical DCP standard in place so it must be exhibited in 35mm).

5) The film-out negative is then physically conformed to the final cut inclusive of any optical wipes or fades, and colour timing is carried out photochemically to create a graded IP.

6) Said IP then goes through the remaining printing steps from Internegative to release print.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Try this:

Man, I hope you don't have to sleep with Andie McDowell to break this loop.

I mean, that would obviously be awesome but I'm not loving your chances

[Geoff D]

And BTW Elvis, that's not a workflow that's in any way unusual: pretty much every single film that featured CG VFX prior to the advent of the digital intermediate followed that basic procedure, and 1-3 still applies to modern productions, so if that doesn't jive with what your take is on this process then I don't know what to say.

Originally Posted by octagon

Man, I hope you don't have to sleep with Andie McDowell to break this loop.

I mean, that would obviously be awesome but I'm not loving your chances

God loves a trier.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And BTW Elvis, that's not a workflow that's in any way unusual: pretty much every single film that featured CG VFX prior to the advent of the digital intermediate followed that basic procedure, and 1-3 still applies to modern productions, so if that doesn't jive with what your take is on this process then I don't know what to say.


God loves a trier.

Yeah, but you're dealing with a guy who still probably thinks Elvis is alive.

[Geoff D]

Viva Las Vegas!! And now I'm going to bed. Without Andie McDowell, darn it.

[octagon]

Rise and shine, campers!

[ElvisForever]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Try this:

1) The 35mm film is shot & developed as per normal.

2) The 35mm negative is scanned into the digital realm in order to have the extensive CG VFX applied to it. The camera negative itself is then vaulted.

3) That "digital negative", if you like, is completed at 2K resolution (like how the vast majority of motion pictures still are today) and is stored on a professional archival format such as LTO tape.

4) Those tapes are used as the source for filming out the 2K-finished VFX scenes, all 2000 of them and virtually every frame of the film, back to 35mm negative as per the conventions of the time (this being 1997-1999, there's no theatrical DCP standard in place so it must be exhibited in 35mm).

5) The film-out negative is then physically conformed to the final cut inclusive of any optical wipes or fades, and colour timing is carried out photochemically to create a graded IP.

6) Said IP then goes through the remaining printing steps from Internegative to release print.

Thanks for the explanation. Though what is digital matte printing and what was all this talk about Optical IP?

Despite the jerk comments, I sm not trying to keep you from sleep.

[Riddler95]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Yep. Also still have the "Faces" THX discs and the 1997 Special Edition set.

Nice!

I don't own the Definitive Collection of the 1995 THX/Faces Editions but I would probably buy them I ever come across mint condition copies for a reasonable price.

I do have the 1997 Special Edition set and the transfers for the three movies are pretty damn good. I'm am still in the hunt for an AC-3 Demodulator and once I finally get one I'll be able to listen to the 5.1 Dolby Digital mixes included. Some Star Wars fans actually prefer the 1997 5.1 Mixes of the 2004 & 2011 6.1 Mixes.

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by Riddler95

Nice!

I don't own the Definitive Collection of the 1995 THX/Faces Editions but I would probably buy them I ever come across mint condition copies for a reasonable price.

I do have the 1997 Special Edition set and the transfers for the three movies are pretty damn good. I'm am still in the hunt for an AC-3 Demodulator and once I finally get one I'll be able to listen to the 5.1 Dolby Digital mixes included. Some Star Wars fans actually prefer the 1997 5.1 Mixes of the 2004 & 2011 6.1 Mixes.

I haven't really watched the Blu-rays enough to know the 2011 mixes that well, but I agree that the '97 ones are FAR superior to the '04 ones. There are some really goofy mixing decisions on those '04 DVDs.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by BNex99

I haven't really watched the Blu-rays enough to know the 2011 mixes that well, but I agree that the '97 ones are FAR superior to the '04 ones. There are some really goofy mixing decisions on those '04 DVDs.

I'm not convinced the flopped surround field for Star Wars was a decision...clearly an error, but LucasFilm didn't want to recall the discs, so they claimed it was intentional. Disney, Warner Bros., and Universal have replaced discs for far less egregious QC issues. Shoot, WB replaced Matrix Revolutions because of a single frame.

[Nicolawicz]

Originally Posted by BladeRunner2007

Popped in Attack of the Clones today.... god, I couldn't even sit 10 minutes through it. What an awful clusterf***. Literally, the only good thing about this movie is John Williams music but George butchered his score becasue of the f*cked up editing This movie hasn't aged well at all. It looks SO much like a PS2 video game. The worst Star Wars movie of them all imo.

Yeah, it's nothing but a cheap-looking turd. And considering the budget, easily one of the worst films ever made.

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by Nicolawicz

Yeah, it's nothing but a cheap-looking turd. And considering the budget, easily one of the worst films ever made.

Anyone who ever says that shouldn't ever be taken seriously. There are literally THOUSANDS of movies out there.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

Anyone who ever says that shouldn't ever be taken seriously. There are literally THOUSANDS of movies out there.

It's on my Pain List of "Movies I Want to Like So Much It Hurts"....but I just can't do it. I can't. Every time I feel the urge to rewatch it, I think of Anakin riding the giant tick cow and the dialog and "this is such a drag" and Jar-Jar bringing down the government and the utter failure to explain the mysteries in the follow-up, and then I need a new round of Chuck Jones/Spielberg/Gene Kelly/Monty Python cinema morphine to take the pain away.

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Try this:

1) The 35mm film is shot & developed as per normal.

2) The 35mm negative is scanned into the digital realm in order to have the extensive CG VFX applied to it. The camera negative itself is then vaulted.

3) That "digital negative", if you like, is completed at 2K resolution (like how the vast majority of motion pictures still are today) and is stored on a professional archival format such as LTO tape.

4) Those tapes are used as the source for filming out the 2K-finished VFX scenes, all 2000 of them and virtually every frame of the film, back to 35mm negative as per the conventions of the time (this being 1997-1999, there's no theatrical DCP standard in place so it must be exhibited in 35mm).

5) The film-out negative is then physically conformed to the final cut inclusive of any optical wipes or fades, and colour timing is carried out photochemically to create a graded IP.

6) Said IP then goes through the remaining printing steps from Internegative to release print.

I have a few questions, sir!

Why are digital negatives completed at 2K and not higher? I've heard of films being scanned at 4K, 6K, and 8K, so why would the digital negative only be 2K?

Is a digital negative the same as a DI (digital intermediate)?

And why does an IP (interpositive) need to be scanned again to produce an IN (internegative)? Is there something about projectors that makes them reverse colors when projected?

And is an IN lower quality than an IP? I'm assuming it is since it seems like there's a loss of one generation.