Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[motorheadache95]

I get the argument about II and III being locked into 1080p, but here's the thing-- I've heard people talking about higher-resolution formats like 4K or whatever, and my reaction is pretty unenthusiastic. I think you can get to a point where you have to question how good a movie has to look. Yeah, 35mm has more detail than 1080p, but, as far as home-video viewing is considered, who cares?

I mean, there's a ton of people that don't even care about the difference between DVD and Blu-Ray. How many people will ever care about a 4K disc or downloading format? Even if you're talking projecting the films on enormous screens, Episode II and III looked pretty impressive on digital projection theaters (though they looked kind of crappy when transferred to film projection). And of course, the movies should look great on Blu-Ray. I just think practical visual improvements beyond the 1080p HD standard are superflous.

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

Did you even read any of the links???

Obviously not.

Yup, I did. A wikipedia article, an interview from Lucas pimping his choice in 2002, and a James Cameron fan site quoting the man that wanted voice actors who used "motion capture" to be nominated for Academy Awards because he is so taken by digital.

Sorry, facts are facts. A 35mm film frame has far more resolution than HD video. It's one of those things like the sun is hot, it's just...indisputable. No matter how the two biggest pushers of the format wish to spin it.

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

I get the argument about II and III being locked into 1080p, but here's the thing-- I've heard people talking about higher-resolution formats like 4K or whatever, and my reaction is pretty unenthusiastic. I think you can get to a point where you have to question how good a movie has to look. Yeah, 35mm has more detail than 1080p, but, as far as home-video viewing is considered, who cares?

I mean, there's a ton of people that don't even care about the difference between DVD and Blu-Ray. How many people will ever care about a 4K disc or downloading format? Even if you're talking projecting the films on enormous screens, Episode II and III looked pretty impressive on digital projection theaters (though they looked kind of crappy when transferred to film projection). And of course, the movies should look great on Blu-Ray. I just think practical visual improvements beyond the 1080p HD standard are superflous.

Oh, I completely agree. We are hitting a threshold for home viewing, no doubt.

But in terms of legacy, etc. - we can still go back to prints made 70 years ago and make them look better than ever before (Wizard of Oz, for example), but no one will ever be able to go back and make II and III look any better than they do now for whatever technology they invent in the future (be it holography or what have you).

I'm sure the Blu's will look ok, maybe even great - but honestly I expect the OT to look better. It's just a shame he locked them forever in 1080p with 2000 technology.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

Sorry, facts are facts. A 35mm film frame has far more resolution than HD video. It's one of those things like the sun is hot, it's just...indisputable. No matter how the two biggest pushers of the format wish to spin it.

Sorry, late to the party. Are some seriously arguing that 1080p HD has more resolution than 35mm film? LOL. I really thought I've heard it all around here in the last 3+ years. Apparently not.

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

Sorry, late to the party. Are some seriously arguing that 1080p HD has more resolution than 35mm film? LOL. I really thought I've heard it all around here in the last 3+ years. Apparently not.

Well James Cameron and George Lucas' make up artist said it - so it must be true!

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

I'm sure the Blu's will look ok, maybe even great - but honestly I expect the OT to look better. It's just a shame he locked them forever in 1080p with 2000 technology.

Now this is totally wrong. Its true that 35 mm film may look better for some future video format with resolution beyond Blu-Ray. Your right that that is indisputable.

However on Blu-Ray now digitally shot material easily surpasses films. Attack of the Clones when it was released on DVD was widely called the best looking DVD ever released. Film may capture more detail then first generation HD cameras (todays cameras are much better) but it captures that detail in film grain which gives movies a dirty unatural feel to them. The higher the resolution you go the more apparent this grain is. There is no film grain in Attack of the Clones or Revenge of the Sith and on Blu-Ray they are garunteed to look far better then there film shot counterparts.

Not to mention detail beyond 1080p will only be noticeable to the human eye on very large screens. The smaller the screen the less image resolution matters. On a television smaller then 50 or so inches the clean grain-free digital image from a digitally shot movie is as good as it gets.

[retablo]

If James Cameron was right, then why did Phantom release a 65mm sensor in their top camera, if a regular tiny sensor would be the equivalent of 65mm?

Heck, even the Canon 5Dmkii has about a 50% larger sensor than the Sony 900s that Lucas used... and no matter how you slice it, 1080 is 1080. You can't get "more" real information out of an image if the information simply isn't there. It's a little different now, with the RED One shooting native 4 and 5K images... but back then, 1080 was 1080.

Digital is still a long way off from being comparable to film. In addition, whereas digital has around 5 stops from black to white, film has around 15... which is why digital images have more crushed blacks and blown out whites and less "middle range".

[Cook]

Originally Posted by retablo

If James Cameron was right, then why did Phantom release a 65mm sensor in their top camera, if a regular tiny sensor would be the equivalent of 65mm?

Heck, even the Canon 5Dmkii has about a 50% larger sensor than the Sony 900s that Lucas used... and no matter how you slice it, 1080 is 1080. You can't get "more" real information out of an image if the information simply isn't there. It's a little different now, with the RED One shooting native 4 and 5K images... but back then, 1080 was 1080.

Digital is still a long way off from being comparable to film. In addition, whereas digital has around 5 stops from black to white, film has around 15... which is why digital images have more crushed blacks and blown out whites and less "middle range".

You have to remember there are people who believe that you can zoom into a reflection in someones eye and get a license plate number from a getaway car like they do in shows such as CSI. That is the same as saying you can get more resolution from AOTC and ROTS than 1080. You can't, because it doesn't exist. What these people don't realize is that it is impossible to create detail and resolution from thin air. If it isn't captured in the original print it doesn't exist. So What you get on Blu-ray is what you got. Enjoy the blu-rays folks, because that is the best those AOTC and ROTS will ever look. I know most are content with that and I am to an extent, but there will come a day when that lack of resolution and detail will bite them in the @$$.

[shelldweller]

That whole discussion is pretty pointless...
the movies were shot in 1080p resolution. Apparently the quality was good enough for the cinematic release in 2002 and 2005. I don´t think we should worry about the quality of the Blu-Rays for Ep.II and III. Of course 35mm doesn´t have any resolution being analog... nevertheless film is also limited by its grain structure which all know can be seen even at 1080p.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by shelldweller

That whole discussion is pretty pointless...
the movies were shot in 1080p resolution. Apparently the quality was good enough for the cinematic release in 2002 and 2005. I don´t think we should worry about the quality of the Blu-Rays for Ep.II and III. Of course 35mm doesn´t have any resolution being analog... nevertheless film is also limited by its grain structure which all know can be seen even at 1080p.

Resolution in film is measured in lines not pixels so analog film does have a type of resolution just not in the usual sense. Its the only way to really compare digital to analog. That being said, resolution or not 35mm still has around 4k lines resolution. This is currently being surpassed by new digital cameras. And, yes, you are right about film being limited by its grain structure, but its better to have the detail be somewhat limited than not have the detail at all. There are proper ways to clean grain (Lowrey technique), but there is no way to create detail from nothing. I, myself, prefer film for some things and digital for others. Take for instance, westerns, they should never be shot on digital. Call me old fashioned, but traditional film and its grain structure add to this genre and its style. Now take for instance a film liek The Social Network, that was a beautifully shot film that utalized digital cameras brilliantly. Certain films require certain cinematography techniques and equipment. I'm not against digital, but I don't want it to become the sole means of capturing film. I simply feel Lucas went with the newest shiniest equipment and it cost the films detail. Hindsight is 20/20, of course, and everyone makes mistakes so I don't hold it against him I just wish things would have gone a different route in the camera department. As for now and while Bluray is the standard of what film can look like in home cinemas we don't have to deal with this yet so as you said the discussion is pointless, but awareness is always a good thing.

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by Cook

Resolution in film is measured in lines not pixels so analog film does have a type of resolution just not in the usual sense. Its the only way to really compare digital to analog. That being said, resolution or not 35mm still has around 4k lines resolution. This is currently being surpassed by new digital cameras. And, yes, you are right about film being limited by its grain structure, but its better to have the detail be somewhat limited than not have the detail at all. There are proper ways to clean grain (Lowrey technique), but there is no way to create detail from nothing. I, myself, prefer film for some things and digital for others. Take for instance, westerns, they should never be shot on digital. Call me old fashioned, but traditional film and its grain structure add to this genre and its style. Now take for instance a film liek The Social Network, that was a beautifully shot film that utalized digital cameras brilliantly. Certain films require certain cinematography techniques and equipment. I'm not against digital, but I don't want it to become the sole means of capturing film. I simply feel Lucas went with the newest shiniest equipment and it cost the films detail. Hindsight is 20/20, of course, and everyone makes mistakes so I don't hold it against him I just wish things would have gone a different route in the camera department. As for now and while Bluray is the standard of what film can look like in home cinemas we don't have to deal with this yet so as you said the discussion is pointless, but awareness is always a good thing.

Lucas knew the risks he was taking. Just watch the AOTC web documentary Here we go again-Shooting Digital.
Somebody had to push it, and so he did.

[Beast]

And again, the films looked amazing on the big screen in 2002 and 2005. So the argument is kinda moot.

[P@t_Mtl]

I watch them quite a lot every year as you all know. For me it's Phantom Menace & Attack Of The Clones who have always look the worst on DVD. Even upscaling in my Sony 360 they really don't look that amazing compare to other DVD. I always found that Revenge Of The Sith look's very good. I will be very curious to see how the first two look on Blu-ray.

As for the other three, even on DVD I always found them to look amazing so I am not worried about them.

[IndefinentBlu]

We need to stop the bickering about the picture quality of the blu-rays!

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by IndefinentBlu

We need to stop the bickering about the picture quality of the blu-rays!

Back to how the weight of lightsabers or who shot first?

[IndefinentBlu]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Back to how the weight of lightsabers or who shot first?

[Beast]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Back to how the weight of lightsabers or who shot first?

We could grab some degraded screenshots online and play Screenshot Scientists. It's all the rage, given by the Scream thread.

[IndefinentBlu]

Maybe we can talk about the weight and, size of the Star Destroyers and, maybe we can debate about how many rooms and people could actually and truthfully live in them?
We can discuss how they replenish their food supply when they are not near any core systems.

Make you wonder about the gaping loop holes Lucas has left in regards to the ships themselves.

[shelldweller]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Back to how the weight of lightsabers or who shot first?

Greedo shot first that greedy son of a ...

[Beast]

We could discuss whether people in the Star Wars Universe go to the bathroom.

After all, if it wasn't shown on film... it didn't happen. It's a gaping plothole!!