Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[mrpink134]

OK the best way to watch them is 3-4-5-6 and pretend 1-2 never happened 1 and 2 are just a waist of time.

[fat_rancor_keeper]

Sorry if I asked this before but....

For those of you who have watched the blu rays a few times now...do you find that you are now used to the newer changes? Particularly the added noooos.

[crazyBLUE]

Originally Posted by fat_rancor_keeper

Sorry if I asked this before but....

For those of you who have watched the blu rays a few times now...do you find that you are now used to the newer changes? Particularly the added noooos.

Personally ~ The changes don't & never have bothered me. I just decide which one to watch & watch it. The changes are so small that it isn't worth having a coronary about IMO.

[42041]

Originally Posted by therainberg

You have just grown up with watching movies on film so you have a strong sense of sentimentality for film and its inherent shortcomings. Digital should never look like film, it should me made and utilized to look like whatever the filmmaker intends it to.

What's wrong with sentimentality? Former technical limitations often become aesthetic tools in an artist's palette, like the sound of 60s records, the look of anamorphic lenses, the general look of film (which is more than just grain, by the way)... I don't want my movies to be a sterile, clinical representation of reality, I want them to have evocative, interesting visuals. For me, the prequels fail in that regard. Not necessarily just because they're shot digitally, that's just part and parcel of the general artistic laziness of George Lucas with these films.
(and for the record, Titanic wasn't some swarming grainfest in 1997)

[Beast]

Originally Posted by crazyBLUE

Personally ~ The changes don't & never have bothered me. I just decide which one to watch & watch it. The changes are so small that it isn't worth having a coronary about IMO.

Well said.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Nicolawicz

Sorry, but the difference is discernible enough for them not to look nor feel like real movies to me. No matter how high the resolution of digital gets, it will always look cheap compared to film.

The differences are already pretty subtle and always is a pretty long time. Even if digital imaging is never completely indistiguishable from film the gaps are only going to get smaller and smaller.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by therainberg

You have just grown up with watching movies on film so you have a strong sense of sentimentality for film and its inherent shortcomings. Digital should never look like film, it should me made and utilized to look like whatever the filmmaker intends it to.

Getting to appreciate a certain art form, and the technique which made it possible originally, doesn't necessarily have to involve some kind of sentimental attachment to it (in this case, actual film vs. digital)

You are also mistaken in saying that "digital should never look like film" - there have been cases of filmmakers shooting digitally but altering the footage in post-production to add grain and make it look more film-like. That, too, may be what certain filmmaker(s) have intended their movies to look like.

While digital does have some advantages, and while those advantages may in fact be useful to some filmmakers in certain conditions, it must not be forgotten that digital is not a proven archival technology, while film (when properly taken care of) remains a viable archival technology. It is ironic, I suppose, that digital films could also become "lost" over a period of time if the original data is compromised or not well looked after.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by therainberg

Digital should never look like film, it should me made and utilized to look like whatever the filmmaker intends it to.

Never? What if a filmmaker wants his or her digital images to look like film?

What then?

[Magicmonger]

Originally Posted by Kinetic_Blue

1,2,3,4,5,6
- or -
4,5,6,1,2,3
- or -
1,4,2,5,3,6

Hmmm, the third one I have never tried.

[budious]

The prequels look horrendous. TPM looks the best of the three cause it was scanned from 35mm. AotC was shot with an early generation digital camera which did not support anamorphic recording so the 2.35 translated to a digital master of around 1920x817 IIRC. RotS supported anamorphic digital so 2.35 was achieved at 1920x1080 giving the film about 25% greater resolution than the previous.

Anyways, the first thing that always draws my attention in the prequels are the poor shadowing, flat digital floorplane, lack of footsteps in the sand, etc. George may the pioneer of digital, but he hardly has a fine eye for it.

[42041]

Originally Posted by therainberg

And why is digital a sterile, clinical representation of reality? Digital gives you complete control of the images and workflow to achieve any image you want. Filmmakers have been scanning film into digital files to achieve higher levels of control over their images for over a decade now. If you are going to do that why bother shooting on film in the first place? There are no visual advantages unless you like the flaws of film. If you want grain and a softer images these things can be done digitally as well

Well, my experience with digital cameras is that they're give you a very "accurate" image, for better or worse. As a photographer I find this rather boring. That's why I usually leave my fancy DSLR at home unless I have some good reason for using them. The films I like do not produce an image that's true to life, but distorted by the film's particular response to color and light, and I've never been able to quite replicate the look in Photoshop.
Scanning film into digital does not nullify the characteristics film has, no more than digitizing a master tape of some 60s record makes it sound like it was recorded yesterday in a digital studio. The image is still captured by the chemicals. The scanner spits out an accurate representation of that image.

[42041]

Originally Posted by therainberg

Well, I'm not going to argue against that because it isn't what I'm talking about. I'm just defending digital from that other guy who was running it down. Nothing wrong with film but digital in cinema has surpassed film in regards to projection and image quality. Just look at the Social Network, film can't touch the clarity of image on display in that film. Some day kids will look back on film and wonder why it's so choppy and covered in static... who am I kidding, some people already look at grain and wonder why their blu-ray is covered in its visual crappyness. I love moves like Scott Pilgrim or Watchmen but the grain is awful even if it is there on purpose.

As far as Fincher goes, personally I much prefer the look of Se7en.
The Social Network actually underwent a complete degraining process. Digital cameras, just like film, need light to produce clean images.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by therainberg

There is no grain in digital, you get noise in low light or what not. Cleaning it up is just part of the process for some shooting conditions.

There are two different blu-rays of Se7en with two different distinct looks out there.

Film will eventually disappear in the coming years. Shooting with film becomes more and more expensive as less people use it, digital becomes cheaper and cheaper as more people use it. Film may have it's own distinct qualities, someone can use it if they want, but they won't be doing anything new with film.

I highly doubt this will happen anytime soon. Most veteran directors (20+ years) will always prefer film. Film has its pros and cons just like digital does. Believe it or not film for photography is still alive and kicking because there are some things that digital cameras cannot do.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Persianimmortal

Your arguments regarding the way in which Anakin's background is irrelevant are flawed. You're not thinking of a new viewer, you're thinking about yourself and existing Star Wars fans.

Hardly! Why bother with existing SW fans?

I created the 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 6 order back in the early 2000's because, after seeing Menace, I had to ask myself what was the best way my friends should show these films to their newborn children, and my own future children, as well. That's where it all started. That's how the discussion began. The only way to preserve the surprises and the integrity of the series is to start with Episode IV, where we are introduced to the saga and to the Force and to characters we actually care about, follow that through to Episode V where everyone gets their ass kicked and one whale of a surprise lies in wait, and then -- when a young person is wondering if Vader is lying or not, you THEN show them the Prequels which creates whole new layers of suspense for them (is he or isn't he), concluding with another huge surprise (Luke and Leia are siblings), and then you tie the whole thing up by going back to Luke and Han and Leia and the Emperor and the grand conclusion.

That's what I suggested almost a decade ago. Glad it has caught on, and Mr. McWeeny chose to show the films to his children in exactly the way I suggested.

Really, it's the only way the saga works anymore for first time viewers. Episode I doesn't even bother to explain what the Force is, for example.

[42041]

Originally Posted by therainberg

There is no grain in digital, you get noise in low light or what not. Cleaning it up is just part of the process for some shooting conditions.

Grain or noise, we can both agree that digital cameras thus far are not the magic bullet for fuzzy noisy stuff on screen. It will be economics, not image quality, that kills film. Grain is, essentially, a non-issue these days; a DP who knows what he's doing can make it barely noticeable.

[Persianimmortal]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Really, it's the only way the saga works anymore for first time viewers.

Once again, nonsense. 4,5,1,2,3,6 is a confusing and rather clumsy attempt at a flashback-orientated way of showing the movies to new viewers, which ruins much of the suspense and storyline. I feel sorry for anyone introduced to the Star Wars saga in this manner. The films have Episode titles for a reason, it is a linear story. We were simply unfortunate enough to have Lucas do the first three, then come back and provide prequels. No need to inflict a backward viewing order on new viewers though, they can watch the whole thing afresh in the right order, or better yet, just show them 4,5,6 and leave it at that. Otherwise insert the 6 discs in a shuffler and let the episodes come out randomly, and call that a "non-linear storytelling experience"

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by therainberg

It's fine if a filmmaker wants to make digital look like film. They just don't have to and film isn't a visual standard or superior. I like the idea of using new tec to do new things instead of re doing what has been done before.

Digital films don't deteriorate and you can make numerous copies and store/restore them as time goes by simply copying old files to new storage devices. No extensive restorations necessary ever! Film burns, film deteriorates eventually. A collectable format like Blu-Ray offers everyone the chance to own a copy of a film that looks better than what was ever seen in cinemas. With such a great storage medium like that films aren't going to get lost any time soon.

As far as having a personal preference for one over the other, everyone's within their right to like one better... but you seriously need to get your facts straight. Film is, in many ways, still superior to digital. It's possible that digital will get even better over time, but at this point I don't see any conclusive evidence of digital being any better.

As for saying that "digital films don't deteriorate"... please. *Any* digital file can deteriorate over time, it's just a matter of how long before it happens.

And unless you have really terrible projection in your theater, blu-ray is *not* going to look better than a well-projected 35mm film. It just doesn't have nearly as much detail as 35mm film. If you are honestly under the impression that blu-ray is better, then you simply have never watched a well-focused, well-projected 35mm film on a large screen. It's still way ahead of what even blu-ray can offer.

[worldwide11]

Yes, digitally stored video is a physical medium like any other. These files are stored on hard drives; the drives cost money, wear out and cost a lot in electricity to run. There's no choice but to use them for CGI heavy films, but these files certainly have a shelf life. A hard drive is expected to last 3-5 years.

Film on the other hand, can look great, but very often doesn't. In real world theaters, you often have to live with dirty screens, bulbs that are on their last leg, or are not run very bright to extend life for the sake of profit.

Also, theaters almost never show an image anywhere near 4K. The following article even demonstrates that IMAX is not 4K.

http://magazine.creativecow.net/arti...ture-of-pixels

In practice then, a high quality home theater set up with blu ray can give most run of the mill theaters a run for the money in terms of PQ, and in many cases, can exceed theater picture quality.

edit--one of the most important points of the article is that digital vs. film and resolution debates are all less important than frame rates. 24 fps is simply insufficient. Getting to 48 or higher is going to yield much more significant results in terms of image quality.

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

As far as having a personal preference for one over the other, everyone's within their right to like one better... but you seriously need to get your facts straight. Film is, in many ways, still superior to digital. It's possible that digital will get even better over time, but at this point I don't see any conclusive evidence of digital being any better.

As for saying that "digital films don't deteriorate"... please. *Any* digital file can deteriorate over time, it's just a matter of how long before it happens.

And unless you have really terrible projection in your theater, blu-ray is *not* going to look better than a well-projected 35mm film. It just doesn't have nearly as much detail as 35mm film. If you are honestly under the impression that blu-ray is better, then you simply have never watched a well-focused, well-projected 35mm film on a large screen. It's still way ahead of what even blu-ray can offer.

[budious]

Just as reference for those proclaiming the excellent PQ, while the resolution is great, the black crush and color timing are horrendous.

2006 Original Trilogy Theatrical Cut DVD


2004 Special Edition HDTV scaled to DVD

[Nicolawicz]

Originally Posted by therainberg

Grain is hideous.

It's the lack of grain that is hideous. Film is always alive, digital looks like paused video in static shots.