Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[DarthMarino]

Originally Posted by Beast

*Blinks* Not a damn clue on the Spielberg Chase. I'm trying to figure out what it could be.

Maybe the Utapau chase animatics. Perhaps he "directed" a different, early version of that scene.

[Merlinpants]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

Yeah, those screenshots are pretty nice.

merlinpants,

I completely agree with you. What we get on Blu Ray will be the 3D version. The question is, how much and how far did Lucas go back to do this release?

I think the answer will lie in cost. Does it cost more to rescan than it does to apply colour correction and recomposite effects shots? Which one wins is probably the route taken but we have already heard ILM quoted as going back to fix the colour. My gut feeling is the '04 WAS used as the base, and we will get no more than a 2K scan version at best. Certainly, current home technology and perhaps even digital cinema technology cannot cope with anything more (Don't flame me, I don't know, my Brother-in-Law works in a cinema that is about the level of my expertise on that ). Will there still be an appetite for Star Wars once technology takes its next leap that will demand a higher resolution scan? If there is (of which I am certain), GL has access to numerous copies, negatives, versions of the saga to achieve this, or certainly his successor will.

[Merlinpants]

Originally Posted by Toxa

thanks but since when money is an issue for lucasfilm ?

Ever since it was used as a lame excuse to not restore the original films LOL.

Lucasfilm is a business and the cost has to be substantially outweighed by the return. I think we all know this is the case with the blu ray release so madness must be our only conclusion

[Jumpman]

merlinpants,

"I think the answer will lie in cost. Does it cost more to rescan than it does to apply colour correction and recomposite effects shots? Which one wins is probably the route taken but we have already heard ILM quoted as going back to fix the colour. My gut feeling is the '04 WAS used as the base, and we will get no more than a 2K scan version at best. Ceratinly, current home technology and perhaps even cinema technology cannot cope with anything more. Will there still be an appetite for Star Wars once technology takes its next leap that will demand a higher resolution scan? If there is (of which I am certain), GL has access to numerous copies, negatives, versions of the saga to achieve this, or certainly his successor will."

That's been my concern about what's next for a long time now. Would it even make a difference to the human eye to go beyond what we have now? Would we really see THAT much of a difference between 1080p and 2k/4K on home displays?

For the average consumer, is 1080p enough?

If we do go beyond, I know for a fact that there are only about two handfuls of films I currently have on Blu Ray that I would even contemplate re-buying yet again at a higher resolution.

Of course, Star Wars would be one of the them. But, I'm not getting caught up in new home video tech next time around like I did with Blu Ray. Blu Ray will satisfy me for the rest of my days.

I do, ultimately agree with your gut feeling. The '04 digital files were the basis for this release. In which case, we're looking at no more than 2k, which can work (Fellowship of the Ring EE as an example).

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by marlon dingle

To be fair I read something recentley that said that Stop Motion nowadays is more expensive to do now properly in movies than CGI. That's why it's pretty much been replaced.

Rancor looks super bad ass in ROTJ.

Not sure what you are implying in this post but in any case, the Rancor is not a stop-motion effect.

[Merlinpants]

We had black and white for many, many years before colour. We had colour tube TV's many, many years before the advent of flat screens. We had flat screens at 720p for years before 1080p. I think 1080p will stick around for quite some time. 3D was the next big thing, but the average consumer, having just bought their shiny new HD TV have not made the step up/across and it is falling down. Is GL worried about the blu rays being the best version for the market today, yes. Is he worried about what is coming next, no. It probably won't be here in his lifetime, and maybe not ours.

I think/hope Star Wars on blu will be the same pinnacle as the DVD's were for that format. It makes no sense for Lucasfilm to repeat the same mistake they made on the DVD, albeit they looked fantastic and the picture quality was exceptional, just not the way they should have looked due to botches in the transfer and poor quality control.

[gallandro]

Originally Posted by Toxa

thanks but since when money is an issue for lucasfilm ?

Easy to say when it's not your money...


Yancy

[Merlinpants]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

Not sure what you are implying in this post but in any case, the Rancor is not a stop-motion effect.

0:14

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f64H3hDa93Y

[phatrat1982]

Originally Posted by phatrat1982

So the official date is the 16th, I am pretty bad a math how much longer is that? It is supposed to be on a Friday too right?



What is everyone's viewing plans when these come out?


Since it is a weekend my plan is to either invite my sisters and their kids over for an all day Star Wars marathon with treats, pop, and trivia or lock myself in my bedroom for the weekend and digest every single second of ever single feature, special feature, deleted scene, commentary, and whatever else turns up. I guess it depends mostly on what my sisters and their families are doing that weekend.

?

[Jumpman]

We had black and white for many, many years before colour. We had colour tube TV's many, many years before the advent of flat screens. We had flat screens at 720p for years before 1080p. I think 1080p will stick around for quite some time. 3D was the next big thing, but the average consumer, having just bought their shiny new HD TV have not made the step up/across and it is falling down. Is GL worried about the blu rays being the best version for the market today, yes. Is he worried about what is coming next, no. It probably won't be here in his lifetime, and maybe not ours.

I think/hope Star Wars on blu will be the same pinnacle as the DVD's were for that format. It makes no sense for Lucasfilm to repeat the same mistake they made on the DVD, albeit they looked fantastic and the picture quality was exceptional, just not the way they should have looked due to botches in the transfer and poor quality control.

In agreement.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Toxa

thanks but since when money is an issue for lucasfilm ?

I am no too sure exactly where everyone seem to think Lucasfilm is in the habit of spending money in great amount? Look at the history of the budgets of the 6 Star Wars movies

A New Hope = $11 million
The Empire Strikes Back = $32 million
Return Of The Jedi = $32.5 million
The Phantom Menace = $115 million
Attack Of The Clones = $120 million
Revenge Of The Sith = $113 million

In todays money, the prequels were made in almost a shoe string budget when you compare them to some of the stuff going on in Hollywood with most movies having budgets well over $200 million. Lucasfilm is very good at making sure they get the best return for the money they spend, they sure are not throwing money away compared to other studios.

I am sure they have done the same thing for the restoration of the movies for Blu-ray release, trying to get the most return.

[Toxa]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I am no too sure exactly where everyone seem to think Lucasfilm is in the habit of spending money in great amount? Look at the history of the budgets of the 6 Star Wars movies

A New Hope = $11 million
The Empire Strikes Back = $32 million
Return Of The Jedi = $32.5 million
The Phantom Menace = $115 million
Attack Of The Clones = $120 million
Revenge Of The Sith = $113 million

In todays money, the prequels were made in almost a shoe string budget when you compare them to some of the stuff going on in Hollywood with most movies having budgets well over $200 million. Lucasfilm is very good at making sure they get the best return for the money they spend, they sure are not throwing money away compared to other studios.

I am sure they have done the same thing for the restoration of the movies for Blu-ray release, trying to get the most return.

CGI are expensive but lucasfilm owns ILM .
they can produce blockbuster with minal cost and high profitability

not to mention games, book, series ...

[BleedingEdge]

As far as I understand it (I only deal with TIFF sequences, not actual physical film elements, with the exception of still negatives from time to time), the reason a 1080p scan is not considered sufficient for a 1080p output is because of two issues: 1. Sensor patterns, and 2. Anti-aliasing.
1. Most imaging sensor arrays have patterns of colors used to capture the color values of each pixel (the most common is the Bayer pattern). Because each sensor can only actually read the luminance value at any given point, filters are used to allow each sensor to capture only one color. These sensors are broken down into Red, Green, and Blue arrangements. Since these sensors cannot overlap, there is a natural displacement of the combined data at each "pixel". This results in a sort of "averaging" of data at each point, causing a loss of actual resolution. A Bayer pattern sensor array, for example, will only resolve 70-80% of the actual resolution being recorded.
2. Alternatively, or sometimes in conjunction with, anti-aliasing is applied to remove the "pixelation effect" that using perfectly alligned rows and collumns of pixels to scan an analog and random image medium causes. This blurs the image even more.

Maybe the scanners used didn't have these issues to deal with (perhaps they used a CCD based derivative), I don't know. However, I think that's why Warner was having issues with certain releases as recent as 2010. Imagine trying to convince the suits that 1080p does not really equal 1080p and why they should spend twice as much to get "better 1080p".

Beyond that, there is always some cropping and resizing to deal with. You should always scan at somewhat higher resolution than you intend to output.

[srinivas1015]

Originally Posted by Merlinpants

I posted late yesterday, so you would have to dig to find it, that some would quote that as being proof of Blu ray footage. That clip is the EXACT clip used in the 2008-2009 Star Wars A Musical Journey concert footage. It has been in existence for ages, and does not prove anything other than the fact Yoda has been inserted into the blu rays. Again, it would be prudent to assume the footage is from the 1080p digital files.

It needs a tweak anyhow as the opening shot is weird. He looks really obvious as he is not showing any orange tint as are the rest of the council.

Exactly.. I think it is from the 'test' footage found on the Rots DVD. Also, it would look really odd considering that the scene isn't that bright(even if they pump up the gamma) as it takes place in the evening/dusk. Also, is it just me or does the chair also look CG?

[gallandro]

Originally Posted by Toxa

CGI are expensive but lucasfilm owns ILM .
they can produce blockbuster with minal cost and high profitability

not to mention games, book, series ...

No, actually if you watch The Phantom Menace documentary, "The Beginning," ILM is paid by Lucasfilm, just like any other production, and they had a very strict budget they were working with. There's even one sequence debating whether Jar Jar should simply be Ahmed Best in full costume with ILM doing head replacement, or a full CGI character. Ultimately they found it was cheaper in terms of production cost and man hours to create Jar Jar as a fully realized CG character.

Yancy

[Beast]

Originally Posted by srinivas1015

Exactly.. I think it is from the 'test' footage found on the Rots DVD. Also, it would look really odd considering that the scene isn't that bright(even if they pump up the gamma) as it takes place in the evening/dusk. Also, is it just me or does the chair also look CG?

They probably would have to digitally remove and replace the chair to make the scene work.

Since just pasting a digital Yoda over the creepy puppet would require a lot of delicate clean-up.

Since you'd have to make sure that the edges of the puppet didn't pop into view. And so on.

[Merlinpants]

Originally Posted by BleedingEdge

As far as I understand it (I only deal with TIFF sequences, not actual physical film elements, with the exception of still negatives from time to time), the reason a 1080p scan is not considered sufficient for a 1080p output is because of two issues: 1. Sensor patterns, and 2. Anti-aliasing.
1. Most imaging sensor arrays have patterns of colors used to capture the color values of each pixel (the most common is the Bayer pattern). Because each sensor can only actually read the luminance value at any given point, filters are used to allow each sensor to capture only one color. These sensors are broken down into Red, Green, and Blue arrangements. Since these sensors cannot overlap, there is a natural displacement of the combined data at each "pixel". This results in a sort of "averaging" of data at each point, causing a loss of actual resolution. A Bayer pattern sensor array, for example, will only resolve 70-80% of the actual resolution being recorded.
2. Alternatively, or sometimes in conjunction with, anti-aliasing is applied to remove the "pixelation effect" that using perfectly alligned rows and collumns of pixels to scan an analog and random image medium causes. This blurs the image even more.

Maybe the scanners used didn't have these issues to deal with (perhaps they used a CCD based derivative), I don't know. However, I think that's why Warner was having issues with certain releases as recent as 2010. Imagine trying to convince the suits that 1080p does not really equal 1080p and why they should spend twice as much to get "better 1080p".

Beyond that, there is always some cropping and resizing to deal with. You should always scan at somewhat higher resolution than you intend to output.

Good post, never knew or thought of that.

The good news is the talk of a 2k scan and the fact that the new PM print seems to have more image on screen, indictaing as you have quoted a resized picture. I am sure these questions will be answered in due course as all of the preview reviewers seem to have raised this exact point and are waiting for a response from Lucasfilm.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by Merlinpants

Good post, never knew or thought of that.

The good news is the talk of a 2k scan and the fact that the new PM print seems to have more image on screen, indictaing as you have quoted a resized picture. I am sure these questions will be answered in due course as all of the preview reviewers seem to have raised this exact point and are waiting for a response from Lucasfilm.

The masters for the 2004 DVDs of the first three films were created from less than 2k scans.

[skyofcrack]

Originally Posted by Merlinpants

Good spot, please do upload. Keep your fingers crossed it isn't the usual PR puff piece like the DVD review article that was full of assumptions and falsehoods. Empire are usually quite good, but will no doubt have Lucasfilm looking over their shoulder.

[Show spoiler]Attachment 37115

I had to shrink the image so it would upload, but it says:

Star Wars deleted scenes!
Luke builds a lightsabre!
Uncut Wampa attack!
The Speilberg Chase! - what the hell is that

The magazine streets on Thursday. Here's the preview for Star Wars Unseen

Episode IV
Notorious B.I.G.G.S.

[balthazar_bee]

Originally Posted by ckocher

These are his movies, not ours. We may feel so attached to them that we take offense every time he tries to change things, but ya gotta remember, these are his movies. He can do what he wants.

Well, we're talking about an art form here. If a work of art is seen by millions and beloved by millions, then intervening decades pass, and the artist decides to put a unibrow on the Mona Lisa, should he be restrained?

If it means we'll be deprived the perfectly lovely original version, yes.

If the films weren't finished in '77, '80, etc., then he shouldn't have released them.

It's an ethical issue, not a legal one. Sure, they physically belong to him, but when you start screwing around with film history (and hardly some minor footnote), you're on shaky ground.

If Orson Welles' last act were to create new colourized prints of Citizen Kane and destroy all B&W ones, should he have been allowed? Why complain? We've got "the classic version" on VHS and SD DVD?

Look, all of this antipathy is because of two simple facts: Lucas refuses to release some of the most important films in history; there are plenty of people out there who are perfectly willing to champion his indefensible argument. "Well, they're his movies -- he can do what he wants. If you don't like it, don't buy them. You're not a true fan," etc. It's childish in the extreme, even more childish than my inability to simply ignore such nonsense when I visit this board.

Most of us who aren't drinking the Kool-Aid are quick to point out that these objections would disappear if both versions were allowed to coexist (with the originals given appropriate restoration). This is called "being reasonable".