Well, in any case, there's only about 7% difference between 2K and 1080p. Maybe they were shot at 1920 by something, but it's not like they used a pocket camcorder either.
(Btw Scope (anamorphic) scanned at 2K usually ended ~ 1746 wide (1828 if you count the extra 4.5 camera aperture %))
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D
LOTR was scanned and finished at 2K, which means that whenever you're watching the 2.35 version, even in the cinema, you're seeing 2048x870 at best.
S-35. You'd see 836 x 2000 or less. 2000 if the theater is showing a 100% of the Scope projector Aperture. Most theaters show less (down to 1900 (5%) is "accepted").
S-35. You'd see 836 x 2000 or less. 2000 if the theater is showing a 100% of the Scope projector Aperture. Most theaters show less (down to 1900 (5%) is "accepted").
Exactly my point. Anything shot Super 35, framed for 2.35 and finished at 2K will produce a resolution a shade above HD. Which is teh SuXXor, obviously.
That's what kills me about this perpetual 'Lucas shot it in HD which SUxxOR!' crap; if people stopped drinking the anti-Lucas Kool-Aid and looked at the facts they'd be surprised. LOTR was scanned and finished at 2K, which means that whenever you're watching the 2.35 version, even in the cinema, you're seeing 2048x870 at best. The film is now locked at that resolution.
I'm more concerned about the original trilogy being scanned in HD resolution (according to what people here are saying anyway) rather than the digital ones. As I understand 4K is more important for the initial scan of the negatives rather than the final resolution of the master, since it prevents issues like grain aliasing and allows more detail to be retained even when subsequently downsampled to 2K or 1080p.
Don't forget, the 'pathetic' HD resolution of Attack Of The Clones was cropped and then blown up to 15-perf 70mm IMAX with excellent results.
Nonsense. I even remember complaining to the theater because I thought the projector was out of focus. The Special Editions and the other prequels also looked like crap at the theater.
So what do you think will change in the 2011 release? A new Yoda (probably younger, taller, and with long hair ala Qui-Gon) for episode 1 seems plausible, but I have a feeling we're going to see a few more changes like:
- Greedo doesn't shoot, period
- new voice for Chewbacca
- Stormtrooper outfits will be tinted green/cyan
- Leia will be blonde
- blue milk will be axed in favor of Gazpacho
- Lucas having lost faith in America, Anakin will be digitally altered to resemble an alien
What do you think? Do you have any predictions of your own?
Chewbacca's family will be re-introduced, possibly in conjunction with Life Day.
I'm more concerned about the original trilogy being scanned in HD resolution (according to what people here are saying anyway) rather than the digital ones. As I understand 4K is more important for the initial scan of the negatives rather than the final resolution of the master, since it prevents issues like grain aliasing and allows more detail to be retained even when subsequently downsampled to 2K or 1080p.
That's something I've been wondering for a while, 'cause how far should it be taken? People on forums have been throwing numbers around like 6K and 8K just for regular 4/35 shows, because bigger is better, right? But I'm thinking, 'huh?'. I've never called anyone out on it because I'm not much more than an Armchair Expert™, and not very good at telling stories, but I'm glad that Torsten Kaiser has said what needed to be said in the terrific interview hosted on this very site. Taking the piss out of the 8K work on Wizard of Oz and GWTW is a bold move, but 8K for academy is indeed insanely OTT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolawicz
Nonsense. I even remember complaining to the theater because I thought the projector was out of focus. The Special Editions and the other prequels also looked like crap at the theater.
You're the first person I've heard complain about the IMAX version of Clones. Here, have a No-Prize.
I didn't see it in IMAX, the 35mm version was pitiful enough.
Funny, they all looked fine to me in good ol' 35. Saw each prequel on opening day, so the prints didn't have the chance to get battered beyond belief. Clones I remember vividly, it looked very bright and colourful.
No, the cameras they used for episodes 2 & 3 filmed 24p 1920 x 1080 footage only.
1080p is 1920 x 1080, 2k is 2048×1556, 4k is 4096 x 2160
John Galt helped pioneer the digital revolution:
In fact, everything talking about 4K belies the fact that most of the theater installations around the world are basically going at 2K. I mean the only commercial 4K digital cinema projector that I am aware of is the Sony 4K projector. But the bulk of theatrical installations around the world are the Texas Instruments DLP. And its maximum resolution is 2048x1080. I mean, let's face it. The difference between 1920 and 2048 is 6%. Believe me, you cannot see a 6% difference. Six percent is irrelevant.
Nonsense. I even remember complaining to the theater because I thought the projector was out of focus. The Special Editions and the other prequels also looked like crap at the theater.
Maybe you needed a new theater.
I saw the SEs at the Mann FOX Westwood (LA) and it was an incredible experience.
AOTC I saw both in 35MM and DLP Digital, 35MM was soft and color drained, the DLP was magnificent.
I saw ROTS at the Ziegfeld (NYC) and that was also one of the best theatrical presentations ever.
I didn't see it in IMAX, the 35mm version was pitiful enough.
I think every person here who has seen Star Wars through digital projection has been amazed by the quality. Renowned critic Roger Ebert saw the film first on a normal projector and mentioned how poor the film looked, he changed his mind completely when he saw it digitally.
Quote:
Roger Ebert / May 14, 2002
After seeing the new "Star Wars" movie projected on film, I wrote that the images had "a certain fuzziness, an indistinctness that seemed to undermine their potential power." But I knew the film had been shot on digital video, and that George Lucas believed that it should preferably be seen, not on film, but projected digitally. Sunday I was able to see the digital version, and Lucas is right: "Star Wars: Episode II--Attack of the Clones" is sharper, crisper, brighter and punchier on digital than on film.
This will come as melancholy news, I suppose, to the vast majority of fans destined to see the movie through a standard film projector. Although an accurate count is hard to come by, there are apparently about 20 screens in America showing "Episode II" via digital projector, and about 3,000 showing it on film. Lucas is so eager to promote his vision of the digital future that he is willing to penalize his audience, just to prove a point.
But he does prove the point. On Sunday, I returned to Chicago's McClurg Court Cinemas, where I had seen "Episode II" on film the previous Tuesday. On Wednesday, technicians from Boeing Digital Cinema swooped down on the theater to install a new Texas Instruments digital projector, and that's how I saw the film a second time--sitting in almost exactly the same seat.
Watching it on film, I wrote, "I felt like I had to lean with my eyes toward the screen in order to see what I was being shown." On digital, the images were bright and clear. Since the movie was being projected on film on another McClurg screen (both screenings were part of a charity benefit for Metropolitan Family Services), I slipped upstairs, watched a scene on film and then hurried downstairs to compare the same scene on video. The difference was dramatic: more detail, more depth, more clarity
Readers familiar with my preference for film over video projection systems will wonder if I have switched parties. Not at all. It's to be expected that "Episode II" would look better on digital, because it was entirely filmed on digital. Therefore, the digitally projected version is generation one, and the film version is one generation further from the source. Lucas is right as far as a computer-aided special-effects movie like "Episode II" goes, but may be wrong for the vast majority of movies that depict the real world on celluloid.I
t is important to understand that "Episode II" is essentially an animated film with humans added to it. This is the flip side of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," which was a live-action film with cartoon characters laid on top. Most of the non-human screen images on "Episode II," and some of the characters (Yoda, Jar-Jar Binks), are created entirely by computers. Even in scenes dominated by humans, the backgrounds and locations are often entirely computer-generated.
Whether this is an advance is debatable. I am receiving mail from readers who prefer the earlier "Star Wars" effects, using models, back projection, puppets and the like. They also question the current hit "Spider-Man," where Spidey's action sequences are animated using "CGI," or computer-generated imagery. David Soto of Santa Ana, Calif., writes, "I liked it, although I wanted to love it. One thing I noticed--for a second I had the impression I was watching a 'Power Rangers' episode." He said CGI made everything "look so fast, so weightless, so unreal."
I agree. In "Episode II," this is true of the most popular scene in the movie, where Yoda abandons his contemplative and sedentary lifestyle and springs into action. Yes, it's fun to see the surprise Yoda has up his sleeve, but in the scene itself, he turns from a substantial, detailed, "realistic" character into a bouncing blob of Yoda-ness, moving too quickly to be perceived in any detail. The debate about CGI vs. traditional effects will be fueled by "Episode II" and "Spider-Man."
The debate about digital projection is just beginning. My feeling is that movies shot on digital video look better projected on video, and that movies shot on film look better projected on film. Of course every theater, every print and every projector is different, so results may vary.
What I dislike about Lucas' approach is that he wants to change the entire world of film to suit his convenience. Because his movies are created largely on computers, it suits him to project them digitally. Because the "Star Wars" franchise is so hugely profitable, he hopes he has the clout to swing the movie world behind him--especially since well-funded Boeing and Texas Instruments stand to make millions by grabbing the projection franchise away from film. A century of cinematic tradition may be shown to the exit by Head Usher Jar-Jar, while Yoda consoles us with the Force.
However, it’s not generally understood how big of a toll is taken on picture quality when you go through the interpositive, the internegative, to the final first generation positive print that goes to the theatre. You lose a lot of resolution, and I mean a lot. There is also a toll taken on tonal reproduction. However, that doesn’t shortchange the final result. The resolution that’s left on the positive print is still pretty spectacular. But high definition television actually has more resolution, not a lot, but a little more resolution than your positive film print. http://www.fromscripttodvd.com/filme...sion_fixed.htm
This poster saw The Dark Knight in Imax and said that it was the 35mm scenes which looked grainy!
Standard 35mm film weighs in at about 10-15 megapixels. When the first scene shot in 35mm began, the difference was stark. Film grain suddenly became visible and the clarity dropped significantly. http://simonweaver.us/?p=942.
This poster saw The Dark Knight in Imax and said that it was the 35mm scenes which looked grainy!
Standard 35mm film weighs in at about 10-15 megapixels. When the first scene shot in 35mm began, the difference was stark. Film grain suddenly became visible and the clarity dropped significantly. http://simonweaver.us/?p=942.
IMAX 70mm/15perf film and 1080p video are not comparable.
(then there's the issue of all the digital garbage IMAX's DMR process applies)
Exactly! It gets so redundant coming here expecting to find news/ info about the BD release and find yet another pointless Star Wars argument. It seems people aren't heeding the mods' "recommendations" to simply drop it. I can't imagine what this place will look like come Sept. 16th.
With less than two months to go, I'm looking forward to some actual first-hand reviews of the BDs. I hope the PQ is far improved over the DVDs.
To pass the time until the blu-ray set comes out, I'm trying to collect every North American VHS and Laserdisc release. Maybe CED and DVD if I can finish LD and VHS quickly enough.
Fun and inexpensive as I can get the VHS tapes for $0.50 to $0.99 and Laserdiscs for about $1.50 or so.
I'll be sticking with Widescreen/Letterboxed unless the Pan/Scan comes in different packaging, for example:
VS.
I would get both, but would not get two laserdisc versions when the only difference is a banner accross the top that says "Widescreen" or not
How are others passing the time? And don't say watching the movies... pfft... I've done that 10 times already... ALL SIX!
To pass the time until the blu-ray set comes out, I'm trying to collect every North American VHS and Laserdisc release. Maybe CED and DVD if I can finish LD and VHS quickly enough.
I cant even remember all the versions I have...
Original individual VHS releases
VHS Box set (Pan/Scan)
VHS Letterbox Edition box set (hologram cover)
VHS Special Edition box set
original Laserdisc individual releases
Laserdisc "Definitive Collection" box set
Laserdisc Special Edition box set
DVD box set
and I even have a copy of the first one (New Hope) on BETA
I cant even remember all the versions I have... and I even have a copy of the first one (New Hope) on BETA
The original BETA release Nice! Did you get it back in the early 80's or more recently?
I've decided to skip the original VHS & Beta releases, as I'm trying to keep it cheap, as in less than $1 per cassette :P Definitely not into spending over $100 for a tape, even if it is the Rental Only version.
I did manage to find the Widescreen edition of Phantom Menace on VHS, comes in a nice box (about the size of a box of golf balls) with an art book excerpt and 5 frames of 35mm film that was apparently used in a theatre during TPM's theatrical run. TBH I'm more in it for the packaging than the actual cassettes. Although I would like to compare the 1993 Laserdiscs to the 2006 Bonus DVDs...
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Nice! Did you get it back in the early 80's or more recently?
Linear Mode
