Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[shelldweller]

There have been rumors on a german SW Site that some dialogue has been recorded for the German dubbed version... I live in Germany and the dubbing of foreign films is horrible but common.

Nevertheless it´s said that there have recordings involving Troopers, Shmi Skywalker and Vader. Maybe there are some new scenes in the movies which are being dubbed. I wish Lucasfilm would make an official statement.

[Beast]

Could be dubbing for the deleted scenes? Maybe?

[beckmen]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

Here's the thing about him filming II and III in 1080p:

Anyone who reads this site and follows the production of Blu-rays knows that a 2K master of the 35mm print is the bare minimum for a decent transfer these days. Most big/important films are mastered at 4K or even 8K now, then downconverted to 1080p for the Blu.

There is a reason that studios do this, because if it wasn't necessary they'd just master everything at 1080p as it would be far cheaper. It's to capture more of the detail even if it has to eventually be downconverted.

Thing is...the detail *does not exist* on Episodes II and III. They may look OK on Blu-ray, who knows.

The point is, in terms of the future, Lucas really shot himself in the foot by doing this. It's not about the successor to Blu-ray, should there be one - it's about the long-term preservation and viability of the films. These two movies have far less resolution available than films made 50 years before because of this short-sighted decision. They are forever frozen in tech that is already woefully outdated, and it will only get worse over time.

Huh? If it was shot and mastered in 1080p, what kind of resolution conversion would be necessary? Also, special effects shots and comps (which make up the bulk of the film) could have been rendered at a higher resolution. I think movies are shot in 2k and 4k mainly for theatrical distribution, anyway. On a 40-foot screen, 1080p might not look as pristine as it does in the home theater range.

The main problem with the PT on BD might be video noise. It may be a byproduct of the compression and mpeg2 conversion, but there was a good deal of noise in II and III on DVD IIRC. But over-all, I think the PT will look good on Blu-ray.

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by shelldweller

There have been rumors on a german SW Site that some dialogue has been recorded for the German dubbed version... I live in Germany and the dubbing of foreign films is horrible but common.

Nevertheless it´s said that there have recordings involving Troopers, Shmi Skywalker and Vader. Maybe there are some new scenes in the movies which are being dubbed. I wish Lucasfilm would make an official statement.

This sounds interesting!!! I can't wait for the BD set to be in my hands!!!!!!

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

Here's the thing about him filming II and III in 1080p:

Anyone who reads this site and follows the production of Blu-rays knows that a 2K master of the 35mm print is the bare minimum for a decent transfer these days. Most big/important films are mastered at 4K or even 8K now, then downconverted to 1080p for the Blu.

There is a reason that studios do this, because if it wasn't necessary they'd just master everything at 1080p as it would be far cheaper. It's to capture more of the detail even if it has to eventually be downconverted.

Thing is...the detail *does not exist* on Episodes II and III. They may look OK on Blu-ray, who knows.

The point is, in terms of the future, Lucas really shot himself in the foot by doing this. It's not about the successor to Blu-ray, should there be one - it's about the long-term preservation and viability of the films. These two movies have far less resolution available than films made 50 years before because of this short-sighted decision. They are forever frozen in tech that is already woefully outdated, and it will only get worse over time.

They looked awesome in theaters, so I am not worried.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

They looked awesome in theaters, so I am not worried.

I think it was mentioned a while back but watching II & III in a digital theatre was a different experience than older theatres.

We'll be getting the full on digital experience.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by beckmen

Huh? If it was shot and mastered in 1080p, what kind of resolution conversion would be necessary? Also, special effects shots and comps (which make up the bulk of the film) could have been rendered at a higher resolution. I think movies are shot in 2k and 4k mainly for theatrical distribution, anyway. On a 40-foot screen, 1080p might not look as pristine as it does in the home theater range.

The main problem with the PT on BD might be video noise. It may be a byproduct of the compression and mpeg2 conversion, but there was a good deal of noise in II and III on DVD IIRC. But over-all, I think the PT will look good on Blu-ray.

I think Billie is referring to someday when HDTV's have a higher resolution than 1080p, and when there is a new home video format that replaces Blu-ray's capacity. Read his last paragraph again.

[shelldweller]

I really hope we´ll be getting something official soon...
Can´t wait for the SW Insider issue.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

Here's the thing about him filming II and III in 1080p:

Anyone who reads this site and follows the production of Blu-rays knows that a 2K master of the 35mm print is the bare minimum for a decent transfer these days. Most big/important films are mastered at 4K or even 8K now, then downconverted to 1080p for the Blu.

There is a reason that studios do this, because if it wasn't necessary they'd just master everything at 1080p as it would be far cheaper. It's to capture more of the detail even if it has to eventually be downconverted.

Thing is...the detail *does not exist* on Episodes II and III. They may look OK on Blu-ray, who knows.

The point is, in terms of the future, Lucas really shot himself in the foot by doing this. It's not about the successor to Blu-ray, should there be one - it's about the long-term preservation and viability of the films. These two movies have far less resolution available than films made 50 years before because of this short-sighted decision. They are forever frozen in tech that is already woefully outdated, and it will only get worse over time.

Thats a shame that at least the live action elements of Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith will never look beyond what they do on Blu-Ray. Though the lack of film grain is a definute plus for me. I don't support excessive DNR either but grain storms are distracting and make the movie unrealistic (unless the character is walking through a sandstorm). Luckily today digital cameras exist that can capture a level of detail on the level of film without the grainy quality that film gives.

At least those who complain about "something better always coming out" will get satisfaction that in this case Blu-Ray is truely the end

[JamesKurtovich]

Originally Posted by chip75

I think it was mentioned a while back but watching II & III in a digital theatre was a different experience than older theatres.

We'll be getting the full on digital experience.

I heard ROTS in the IMAX theater was incredible (especially the opening battle) but sadly it came out when IMAX was only available in select cities.

Hopefully the BD will reflect that experience.

[shelldweller]

I guess the quality will be awesome for Blu-Rays... that´s all that counts at the moment. The only thing I´m a bit worried about is the sound quality of "A New Hope"... even if you just listen to the soundtrack you can hear the quality is not up to par with the others.

Wouldn´t it be great if they went for a complete rerecording conducted by John Williams? That way the "imperial march" could be inserted...

[Mavrick]

Originally Posted by shelldweller

I guess the quality will be awesome for Blu-Rays... that´s all that counts at the moment. The only thing I´m a bit worried about is the sound quality of "A New Hope"... even if you just listen to the soundtrack you can hear the quality is not up to par with the others.

Wouldn´t it be great if they went for a complete rerecording conducted by John Williams? That way the "imperial march" could be inserted...

That would be cool.

[shelldweller]

I only hope they (or George Lucas) were willing to invest the money and time needed to master the movies properly... make final enhancements, correct mistakes, proper color-timing etc.

After all, these versions will be the ones rereleased in cinemas over the next years ...

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by JamesKurtovich

I heard ROTS in the IMAX theater was incredible (especially the opening battle) but sadly it came out when IMAX was only available in select cities.

Hopefully the BD will reflect that experience.

Wow! I didn't even know it played in IMAX!

I can only imagine....

Originally Posted by shelldweller

I only hope they (or George Lucas) were willing to invest the money and time needed to master the movies properly... make final enhancements, correct mistakes, proper color-timing etc.

After all, these versions will be the ones rereleased in cinemas over the next years ...

I strongly hope so as well.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

Here's the thing about him filming II and III in 1080p:

Anyone who reads this site and follows the production of Blu-rays knows that a 2K master of the 35mm print is the bare minimum for a decent transfer these days. Most big/important films are mastered at 4K or even 8K now, then downconverted to 1080p for the Blu.

There is a reason that studios do this, because if it wasn't necessary they'd just master everything at 1080p as it would be far cheaper. It's to capture more of the detail even if it has to eventually be downconverted.

Thing is...the detail *does not exist* on Episodes II and III. They may look OK on Blu-ray, who knows.

The point is, in terms of the future, Lucas really shot himself in the foot by doing this. It's not about the successor to Blu-ray, should there be one - it's about the long-term preservation and viability of the films. These two movies have far less resolution available than films made 50 years before because of this short-sighted decision. They are forever frozen in tech that is already woefully outdated, and it will only get worse over time.

Meh. 4K finishes are still pretty rare, and 2K is still very much the norm. Any film finished on a 2K DI has a minor increase in resolution over 1080p when comparing final frame sizes, and those films are locked in to that resolution for the forseeable future. Sure, the potential will be there to go back to film sources and rebuild from the ground up in, say, 4K, but it'd be an extremely costly endeavour, especially for effects-heavy stuff like LOTR.

It's all well and good saying that it can be done, but I suspect that the $$$-oriented reality will prove to be very, very different. Still, if those films could be re-rendered, then so can Star Wars. An incredible amount of what we see in the prequels is CG rendered at 2K, so why can't that be re-rendered at 4K (or whatever) and combined with upscaled 1080p camera footage?

Those 'mere' 1080p Star Wars images were up-rezzed to IMAX DMR with little complaint (if any). Heck, they had to put filters on the cameras for Episode III because the images they were getting back were too sharp according to Star Wars' effects supremo John Knoll. No, I'm not saying that HD is "good enough for everything", or whatever words people would like to twist that into, but we're not talking about NTSC video here. HD recorded at a professional level is capable of holding a staggering amount of detail, not least because it isn't beholden to the idiosyncracies of film.

Please don't take my word for it. John Knoll again, from his Star Wars 365 book:

"The thing is, it's not the number of pixels or the theoretical number of resolvable line pairs that optics can give you on film - where under laboratory conditions, one can achieve a certain high level of performance - what matters is real-world performance. And there the resolution of HD is comparable to or better than that of film".

[danny_boy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Meh. 4K finishes are still pretty rare, and 2K is still very much the norm. Any film finished on a 2K DI has a minor increase in resolution over 1080p when comparing final frame sizes, and those films are locked in to that resolution for the forseeable future. Sure, the potential will be there to go back to film sources and rebuild from the ground up in, say, 4K, but it'd be an extremely costly endeavour, especially for effects-heavy stuff like LOTR.

It's all well and good saying that it can be done, but I suspect that the $$$-oriented reality will prove to be very, very different. Still, if those films could be re-rendered, then so can Star Wars. An incredible amount of what we see in the prequels is CG rendered at 2K, so why can't that be re-rendered at 4K (or whatever) and combined with upscaled 1080p camera footage?

Those 'mere' 1080p Star Wars images were up-rezzed to IMAX DMR with little complaint (if any). Heck, they had to put filters on the cameras for Episode III because the images they were getting back were too sharp according to Star Wars' effects supremo John Knoll. No, I'm not saying that HD is "good enough for everything", or whatever words people would like to twist that into, but we're not talking about NTSC video here. HD recorded at a professional level is capable of holding a staggering amount of detail, not least because it isn't beholden to the idiosyncracies of film.

Please don't take my word for it. John Knoll again, from his Star Wars 365 book:

Indeed.

Maybe HD 1080/24p is better than 35mm film.


James Cameron says as much in an interview with Hollywood reporter in 2002:

James Cameron
"The amount of data available from a 35mm negative is much less than the amount of data available from an HD frame."


The Hollywood Reporter:

"Film purists argue the opposite. "

James Cameron:
" They're wrong. You can take an HD image and blow it up by double before you start to see the same amount of granularity you have with a 35mm negative. George Lucas did some tests that I flew up to see, and it corresponded to what we'd found. I'd say the Sony HD 900 series cameras are generating an image that's about equivalent to a 65mm original negative".
http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org...tml?1030913916.

[danny_boy]

Kallay- What were some of the concerns about going from 24p and how it might look in IMAX?

Ward- First of all, similar to any film. How are things going to look on the big screen? When you have 24p, you're less obviously concerned about grain in the film, but you are concerned about how images are going to hold up. Also, you're concerned about how the effects are going to hold up. Are they going to have the same relative feel that the film has in its smaller format? And then things like contrast, color saturation, all of those issues still pertain and needed to be worked on in the process.

Kallay- Did the magicians at ILM do any tinkering to the original footage to make it look good in the larger format?

Ward- No. We handed over the files to the IMAX guys, and they worked together on the DMR process to make it look as great as it does.



http://www.in70mm.com/news/2002/star_wars/index.htm

[Bluyoda]

Thanks for the highly interesting posts above.

That's pretty much the same thing George Lucas said.

Well, I believe they are going to look sublime.

Here is something I have found:

In 1994 Sony Executives approached "Party of Five" (FOX) producer, Ken Topolsky and director of photography Roy H. Wagner ASC, in an effort to photograph side by side tests with Sony's prototype High Def camera and 35mm film. This resulted in one of the first network broadcast television series, FOX Pilot PASADENA (2001), directed by Diane Keaton, photographed by Wagner. The results were so successful, shown to directors and Industry decision makers at the Directors Guild of America and Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) meetings, that many were encouraged by the film like images. Soon many Series were considering HD originated image capture.

In May 2002 Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones became the first high-profile, high-budget movie released that was shot on 24 frame-per-second high-definition digital video, using a Sony HDW-F900 camera. Two lesser-known movies, Vidocq (2001) and Russian Ark (2002), had previously been shot with the same camera, the latter notably consisting of a single shot (no cuts).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinematography


An extremely interesting read indeed.

[Bluyoda]

Here you go:

Lesley Vanderwalt, the Episode II makeup artist, has said that sometimes the hi-def images were so clear that smudges and brushstrokes were visible in the actors' makeup. What strategies did you employ for makeup, costuming, props and sets to work with hi-def as opposed to film?

Lucas: We used filters to soften the image and make it a little less sharp so we could get away with more, but you do have to be very careful [because] you can't get away with as much fudging as you used to. The sets, costumes and makeup have to be more finished. It's going to require refinement in all the crafts because the digital image is so much sharper. It's easy to degrade the image. You can hide all the little seams and imperfections that inevitably show up on props and sets and costumes simply by putting a filter on the camera so that the image is a little smudged, or you can have everybody come up a notch so you can do a really sharp close-up on somebody's face without seeing the brush marks on the makeup.


http://www.theasc.com/magazine/sep02...ing/index.html

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by beckmen

Huh? If it was shot and mastered in 1080p, what kind of resolution conversion would be necessary? Also, special effects shots and comps (which make up the bulk of the film) could have been rendered at a higher resolution. I think movies are shot in 2k and 4k mainly for theatrical distribution, anyway. On a 40-foot screen, 1080p might not look as pristine as it does in the home theater range.

I was talking about the mastering of a Blu-ray.

When a new film is coming out on Blu-ray, and they scan the 35mm prints, 2K is the bare minimum, with 4K and even 8K being used for the big guns. This master is then edited, then downconverted to 1080p for Blu-ray.

The studio's don't do that for fun (especially because it is expensive). They do it because it produces a better picture, and the actual resolution of a 35mm print is far, far above 1080p.

I don't know what the people supposedly quoted above are smoking - probably $100 bills, if you are talking about Cameron, LOL - but a couple of quotes from the biggest digital fanboys on the planet does not change the fact that 35mm film has a far, far greater resolution than 1080p. That's simply indisputable, no matter how anyone wishes to spin it.

Someone mentioned "well can't they just re-render and upconvert?" sure, but that doesn't change the fact that the "filmed" elements will never have any more detail than 1080p. It's like saying, "Why bother with a blu-ray just upconvert the DVD".

This locks those two films into 200*'s tech. Forever. Think past five years, try fifty, or a hundred. It was just a poor, poor decision on his part, because he's frozen those two films forever in infant technology from an early adopter rush, when every other film that is actually, well, filmed, can be manipulated far beyond that.

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

I was talking about the mastering of a Blu-ray.

When a new film is coming out on Blu-ray, and they scan the 35mm prints, 2K is the bare minimum, with 4K and even 8K being used for the big guns. This master is then edited, then downconverted to 1080p for Blu-ray.

The studio's don't do that for fun (especially because it is expensive). They do it because it produces a better picture, and the actual resolution of a 35mm print is far, far above 1080p.

I don't know what the people supposedly quoted above are smoking - probably $100 bills, if you are talking about Cameron, LOL - but a couple of quotes from the biggest digital fanboys on the planet does not change the fact that 35mm film has a far, far greater resolution than 1080p. That's simply indisputable, no matter how anyone wishes to spin it.

Someone mentioned "well can't they just re-render and upconvert?" sure, but that doesn't change the fact that the "filmed" elements will never have any more detail than 1080p. It's like saying, "Why bother with a blu-ray just upconvert the DVD".

This locks those two films into 200*'s tech. Forever. Think past five years, try fifty, or a hundred. It was just a poor, poor decision on his part, because he's frozen those two films forever in infant technology from an early adopter rush, when every other film that is actually, well, filmed, can be manipulated far beyond that.

Did you even read any of the links???

Obviously not.