Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by shane01

I am 82% sure I read somewhere--and 70% it was in Creating the Worlds of Star Wars: 365 Days that John Knoll wrote--that Lucas and co. were so floored by the Sony HDCAM footage, they softened the image because audiences just weren't ready for that level of pure, sharp, digital photography. They didn't soften the CG worlds they ended up creating, though! So the haziness of the image is around the live action elements. Maybe that's why AOTC is so disorienting. I'll check the book when I get home, because it at least includes technical details of the Sony camera used for AOTC and the upgraded one used for ROTS.

Correct, I've got the same book. They used Pro Mist filters to soften the image so it still comes down to the acquisition in one way or another as to why it looks like it does. Posted more titbits from the book here: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...9#post10552502

[Shalashaska]

To make matters even worse, wasn't Clones shot on and digitally projected from high-resolution tape?

That's even less than 1920x1080.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Shalashaska

To make matters even worse, wasn't Clones shot on and digitally projected from high-resolution tape?

That's even less than 1920x1080.

Folks say it was 1440x1080, yes, but bear in mind that anything shot on 1920x1080 HD and framed in 2.35 widescreen still basically chops off the top and bottom, so digital movies like Miami Vice, Sin City etc are "even less" as well. Then again, 2K theatrical projection comes in at 2048x858 and has stayed that way for the last 15 years or so, so maybe ol' George was onto something...

[shane01]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

They used Pro Mist filters to soften the image so it still comes down to the acquisition in one way or another as to why it looks like it does.

That's the best they could do? They couldn't come up with a better alternative than to wash out the footage??

Also, is it possible that someday we could get a restored version? Meaning no Pro Mist filter, raw footage with re-rendered CG, etc? It would probably be a huge waste of money, but I'd love if we got a 4K scan of The Phantom Menace's theatrical negative and a restored Attack of the Clones. Plus, y'know, theatrical editions of the original trilogy.

[Shalashaska]

Originally Posted by shane01

I am 82% sure I read somewhere--and 70% it was in Creating the Worlds of Star Wars: 365 Days that John Knoll wrote--that Lucas and co. were so floored by the Sony HDCAM footage, they softened the image because audiences just weren't ready for that level of pure, sharp, digital photography. They didn't soften the CG worlds they ended up creating, though! So the haziness of the image is around the live action elements. Maybe that's why AOTC is so disorienting. I'll check the book when I get home, because it at least includes technical details of the Sony camera used for AOTC and the upgraded one used for ROTS.

Lol at softening the image for looking too pure.

I do almost understand why they went for HDCAM over film though, and not just for the sake of progression and technology.

Theatrical prints were third or fourth-generation from the master negative and considerably lower quality than the negative, much softer and grainier. A 35mm projection you'd see in the theaters wouldn't even be 1080p, a bit less depending on the aspect ratio and lens used.

Back then, I imagine 1440x1080 digital tape without the issue of grain or softness would've looked marvelous. Now that studios are scanning from the negative which can hold up to 4K level of detail, Lucas looks like a right idiot.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by shane01

That's the best they could do? They couldn't come up with a better alternative than to wash out the footage??

Also, is it possible that someday we could get a restored version? Meaning no Pro Mist filter, raw footage with re-rendered CG, etc? It would probably be a huge waste of money, but I'd love if we got a 4K scan of The Phantom Menace's theatrical negative and a restored Attack of the Clones. Plus, y'know, theatrical editions of the original trilogy.

The filter was a physical piece of glass attached to the camera lens, it's part and parcel of the image as captured.

As for Phantom Menace, virtually the entire film has some form of digital manipulation at 2K so that 2K master is the "negative" to all intents and purposes, any finished film elements used for duping, prints etc were filmed out from that 2K version. Yeah, they could do a TNG and dig up the actual camera original, scan it all in again and redo the VFX but here's the kicker: ILM can't read their digital VFX files for TPM any more (which John Knoll himself divulged when talking about the 3D conversion) so they can't just re-render what they did, the ENTIRE lot of digital VFX would have to be redone from scratch and that's just not gonna happen.

[Shalashaska]

Originally Posted by shane01

That's the best they could do? They couldn't come up with a better alternative than to wash out the footage??

Also, is it possible that someday we could get a restored version? Meaning no Pro Mist filter, raw footage with re-rendered CG, etc? It would probably be a huge waste of money, but I'd love if we got a 4K scan of The Phantom Menace's theatrical negative and a restored Attack of the Clones. Plus, y'know, theatrical editions of the original trilogy.

TPM is a strange one.

Most of it was shot in 35mm, some Vistavision, and some on HDCAM, but because of its use of CGI, it's restricted to a 2K digital intermediate.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that no different from the movies of the last ten years that are stuck at 2K for that very same reason?

EDIT: Geoff D seems to have answered my question in the post right above me

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Shalashaska

Lol at softening the image for looking too pure.

I do almost understand why they went for HDCAM over film though, and not just for the sake of progression and technology.

Theatrical prints were third or fourth-generation from the master negative and considerably lower quality than the negative, much softer and grainier. A 35mm projection you'd see in the theaters wouldn't even be 1080p, a bit less depending on the aspect ratio and lens used.

Back then, I imagine 1440x1080 digital tape without the issue of grain or softness would've looked marvelous. Now that studios are scanning from the negative which can hold up to 4K level of detail, Lucas looks like a right idiot.

Making movies on something other than film had to start somewhere [edit] and it wasn't just Lucas as Francis Ford Coppola's digital dreams were just as vivid, he was experimenting with HD and non-linear editing decades ago and was probably the one that turned Lucas onto the prospects of digital in the first place. (The Cannes press conference he did for Apocalypse Now has a fascinating moment when he tells the assembled journos that in years to come they'll be shooting video on tiny little handheld boxes.) Hell, even Mr Celluloid 'Til I Die a.k.a. Quentin Tarantino remarked at how solid Hi8 video looked when blown up to 35mm (this is on the special features for Pulp Fiction).

Film loses resolution not just from the intermediate steps but also the inherent instability of the process, so when they talk about how sharp the images were on Clones - and this is John Knoll, not Lucas who said that - then I believe them. A rock-solid digital image with no weave or generational loss will always best a multi-generation print hurtling past a shutter in terms of sheer resolvable spatial resolution. As to what looks better subjectively that's in the eye of the beholder, natch.

I think Lucas is a true pioneer as much as he is an idiot. The cameras weren't really ready for prime-time on Clones, even I'll admit that (they had terrible problems with depth of field when shooting the miniatures, Lucas should've swallowed his pride and shot them on 8/35 as normal) but the guy had big brass cojones to even attempt it. And as I said, George wasn't too far off the mark: it's all well and good that some movies are getting remastered in 4K but seeing as most movies made in the last 15 years are locked to 2K resolution in one way or another Lucas' decisions are still quite prescient.

[Shalashaska]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Making movies on something other than film had to start somewhere [edit] and it wasn't just Lucas as Francis Ford Coppola's digital dreams were just as vivid, he was experimenting with HD and non-linear editing decades ago and was probably the one that turned Lucas onto the prospects of digital in the first place. (The Cannes press conference he did for Apocalypse Now has a fascinating moment when he tells the assembled journos that in years to come they'll be shooting video on tiny little handheld boxes.) Hell, even Mr Celluloid 'Til I Die a.k.a. Quentin Tarantino remarked at how solid Hi8 video looked when blown up to 35mm (this is on the special features for Pulp Fiction).

Film loses resolution not just from the intermediate steps but also the inherent instability of the process, so when they talk about how sharp the images were on Clones - and this is John Knoll, not Lucas who said that - then I believe them. A rock-solid digital image with no weave or generational loss will always best a multi-generation print hurtling past a shutter in terms of sheer resolvable spatial resolution. As to what looks better subjectively that's in the eye of the beholder, natch.

I think Lucas is a true pioneer as much as he is an idiot. The cameras weren't really ready for prime-time on Clones, even I'll admit that (they had terrible problems with depth of field when shooting the miniatures, Lucas should've swallowed his pride and shot them on 8/35 as normal) but the guy had big brass cojones to even attempt it. And as I said, George wasn't too far off the mark: it's all well and good that some movies are getting remastered in 4K but seeing as most movies made in the last 15 years are locked to 2K resolution in one way or another Lucas' decisions are still quite prescient.

Very informative

Slightly off-topic, but how does a film like (here's my Star Trek bias coming out) First Contact or Insurrection fare when a large part of its SFX are CGI, but there's no digital intermediate? Is the CG printed right onto the negative? What resolution would those effects hold and how will those films fare in terms of future remasters?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Shalashaska

Very informative

Slightly off-topic, but how does a film like (here's my Star Trek bias coming out) First Contact or Insurrection fare when a large part of its SFX are CGI, but there's no digital intermediate? Is the CG printed right onto the negative? What resolution would those effects hold and how will those films fare in terms of future remasters?

Yes, those CG shots are filmed out onto 35mm and then cut into the negative as normal, this was entirely routine for movies prior to the DI revolution [edit] but was another area where TPM was ahead of its time: the movie had so much digital tomfoolery (not just VFX, but the sort of editorial split-screening of different takes that David Fincher now takes for granted) that its complete form existed in the computer first and foremost before the first 'official' full-colour full-length DI came along in 2000 with O Brother.

The earlier CG effects were nearer 1K but 2K became the standard about 20 years ago AFAIK (with up to 8K being used for 15-perf IMAX in latter years). So if you take that conformed negative of x film and scan it in 4K you're essentially upscaling the VFX shots, but bear in mind that they were over-engineered to keep things like aliasing to a minimum, so even if they don't have x amount of resolution they still don't look like stair-stepped digital shite at a higher resolution.

I saw Titanic with its now-two-decade-old VFX blown up to 15/70 IMAX (from the 4K Lowry remaster) and it held up extraordinarily well for the most part; there were a few dodgy shots re: digital people but to be perfectly honest they were always dodgy no matter what version I saw.

[Gargus]

I know this has been asked a bazillion times but, there ever any word on the original theatrical trilogy coming to blu ray now that Disney owns star wars?

I would be thrilled even if the picture got cleaned up a little and the audio a once over. But I just don't like the special editions. I guess because I was alive when they were in theaters and made such an impression that I know every scene by heart and the extra stuff just doesn't compute.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I think Lucas is a true pioneer as much as he is an idiot. The cameras weren't really ready for prime-time on Clones, even I'll admit that (they had terrible problems with depth of field when shooting the miniatures, Lucas should've swallowed his pride and shot them on 8/35 as normal) but the guy had big brass cojones to even attempt it. And as I said, George wasn't too far off the mark: it's all well and good that some movies are getting remastered in 4K but seeing as most movies made in the last 15 years are locked to 2K resolution in one way or another Lucas' decisions are still quite prescient.

There's also the simple fact that since people have been watching 2k masters on huge screens in theaters for years without complaint it's proooobably a fair enough standard, despite the current rabid 4k salesmanship going on.

[Geoff D]

Indeed sir, that is the point that my loquacious rambling was intended to convey, verily.

In a word: Yes.

[Blu-21]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

It's just not a great looking film. Shot on early digital cameras at a relatively low resolution and with tons of digital tinkering done at a time when that was relatively new as well. It's never going to look any better, it is what it is. This is the reason why many film mags and sites at the time criticized the idea of shooting it that way, but Lucas had to trailblaze because that's what he loved to do. 15 years later digital movies look much better, though still worse than film IMO, so he doomed us all.

Also Phantom Menace is BY FAR the worst looking transfer in that collection due to DNR-a-go-go.

Agreed TPM is ruined by DNR, but it's a far better looking film than AOTC, the cinematography is stunning. Put it this way: I bet TPM minus the DNR and other processing would still look superior to AOTC minus the Pro Mist filters. I know it's almost impossible for either film to be seen in such a way due to a lot of technical reasons that Geoff D has elaborated on, but that's partly why I think AOTC is the worst looking of the set.

[GDHickey]

Got this today, already had the movie only versions, so I am indulging in the extras......so much awesome here......can't wait to watch more.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by GDHickey

Got this today, already had the movie only versions, so I am indulging in the extras......so much awesome here......can't wait to watch more.

The way the extras are laid out on the BDs is excruciating. I barely made it through the Prequels disc, haven't even bothered with the other two yet.

[GDHickey]

The layout is a bit different, but I am not having any problems navigating it. Been doing a bit here and there, disc 9 is awesome so far.....

[Alan_Grant]

I'm just pissed that if I want all the extravagant extras of the PT dvds, I can't find them on disc, same goes for the SW documentary released with the OT SE Set, so I essentially have 2 copies of each movie.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Alan_Grant

I'm just pissed that if I want all the extravagant extras of the PT dvds, I can't find them on disc, same goes for the SW documentary released with the OT SE Set, so I essentially have 2 copies of each movie.

Yeah, it stinks. I have the 2004 DVD trilogy for the Empire of Dreams documentary and Vader not saying NO! in ROTJ. Then I have the later trilogy for the OUT LD transfers. On top of that I also have the steelbooks and the Complete Saga on BD.

Just in case others were curious this is what is missing from the first six films on BD:

Star Wars: The Complete Saga (Original Trilogy)
LD - Commentaries & Theatrical Cuts
2006/2008 DVDs - Theatrical Cuts
2004 DVD Trilogy (Bonus Disc) - Empire of Dreams documentary, The Birth of the Lightsaber documentary, The Characters of Star Wars documentary, & The Force Is with Them documentary

Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace
2001 DVD - "The Beginning" Documentary (66:15), 7 deleted scenes (17 min) & deleted scenes documentary (37 min), 12-part Web Documentary series (58:08), 5 Featurettes (40:11): "Visual Effects", "Costumes", "Design", "Fights", "Story"; 2 Multi-Angle Storyboard-to-Animatic-to-Film Sequences (4:05), "Duel Of The Fates" Music Video, Theatrical & Teaser Trailers, 7 TV Spots, Galleries Of Theatrical Posters, Print Campaign and Production Photos

Star Wars: Episode II: Attack of the Clones
2002 DVD - "From Puppets to Pixels: Digital Characters In Episode II" Documentary (52:19), "State of the Art: The Previsualization of Episode II " (23:29), "Films Are Not Released: They Escape" Documentary (25:40), 8 Deleted Scenes (12:15), 12-Part Web Documentary (64:41), 3 Featurettes (27 min): "Story", "Love", "Action", "Visual Effects Breakdown Montage" (3:38), "R2-D2: Beneath the Dome" Trailer (6:03), "Across the Stars" music video, Theatrical & Teaser Trailers, 12 TV Spots, Poster, Print Campaigns and Production Photo galleries

Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
2005 DVD - "Within a Minute: The Making of Episode III" Documentary (78:26), "It's all for Real: The Stunts of Episode III" Featurette (11:04), "The Chosen One" Featurette (14:37), 6 Deleted Scenes (9:36), 15-Part Web Documentary Series (95:58), "A Hero Falls" Music video by John Williams, Theatrical & Teaser Trailers, 15 TV Spots, Production Photos, Posters, & Print Campaign galleries

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by Alan_Grant

I'm just pissed that if I want all the extravagant extras of the PT dvds, I can't find them on disc, same goes for the SW documentary released with the OT SE Set, so I essentially have 2 copies of each movie.

And don't imagine for a second that's not intentional!