valinkrai said:
I'm no expert on film grain effects, but shouldn't the grain look stretched from the theoretical anamorphic stretching process?
Well, I didn't make the mockup in AE as I'm still downloading and reinstalling all my programs and plugins. Yes, the grain will be stretched to fit the anamorphic process.
So while I'm in the process of still ripping all my blurays back to my computer, I thought I'd steal a screencap from bluray.com and process it to show off my new film grain method. I should note that the blue lightsabers look a tad too cyan, I accidentally over did changing the blue a bit, otherwise this is getting closer to what you'll see. I'm also having some issues with Obi's skin tones still.
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/35462
This new grain method was created by upscaling the 1080p to 4K (I made the mockup through photoshop CC, so I used the new "preserve details" algorithm) and then carefully denoised the footage to get rid of upscaling artifacts and (slight softening was also added to emulate the softer 35mm texture) then added the grain (through camera raw for this one, but I will use misfire for the real thing). I then downscaled the footage using bicubic to make sure no additional sharpening or smoothening was applied. This allows the grain to be less obtrusive and more natural.
valinkrai said:
It's actually some company called Trifecta Entertainment and Media. I assumed the same as you, but I didn't remember any logos of Warner Bros. Only the Clone Wars movie itself was WB if I recall.
Oh, I see now. That probably explains why the movie isn't included in the season 1-5 collector's boxset.
thekremlin said:
The worst thing about that video is everyone nodding along and laughing while they grin and bear it. I really do wonder if anyone on those three films had the balls to say, "You know, George, that's not really a very good idea." at any point. I would assume not.
Maybe plenty did, George just erased them from the credits and the bonus material.
valinkrai said:
I suppose it's possible, but The Clone Wars isn't distributed by Fox.
I know The Clone Wars is distributed by Warner Bros., but they certainly strike a similar look.
Ryan McAvoy said:
I'm gonna say something controversial but the CGI Yoda is just as good as the puppet from ESB... perhaps better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KH1GOFUCHk
Unlike with almost every other CGI element of the PT the animators slaved over Yoda as can be seen in the production videos. They were working on it for along time before they even showed/told Lucas because they were so scared of screwing it up. They did research frame by frame into how Frank Oz's hand moved inside the head to mimic it exactly with the CGI muscles. They wanted it to look like the puppet but with subtle facial movements not possible with a physical puppet. They even copied the exact way puppet Yoda's rubber ears woblled when he moved. I believe Adywan is approaching ESB:R Yoda from a similar perspective with very subtle CGI ehancements (Like he did in the Cantina).
I would consider CGI Yoda to be the second best performance in the PT, just behind Ian McDiarmid.
Yoda's leaping around at the end of AOTC is another matter. Again as can be seen in the production videos the animators had prepared a subtle and convincing way for Yoda to move but Lucas took one look and said no he should spring around like a Frog, as can be seen in this video...
Yes, Lucas did screw with Yoda's movements in ATOC. But no way is a fully CGI yoda better than the OT puppet Yoda. The puppet is real, and you can tell that. The movements may not be as detailed, but you can see it take up real space. Ady's CGI enhancements are great as they are subtle and not fully replacing him. But entirely CGI, creates a huge disconnect between the characters and the audience, one of the many reasons the PT is so inferior.
DuracellEnergizer said:
While I don't love him, I'd take him over Spastic Plastic CG Vomit Yoda any day.
Indeed, the ideal would be an ESB/ROTJ Yoda in the prequels, but that probably won't ever happen except for maybe some very ambitious fanedit.
Anyhow, I now see why they are repackaging the films.
Someday CGI will be entirely photorealistic, but that's atleast 15 years away. So for now use models and miniatures, they really make the films come alive. It's the reason I'm so excited to see what Ady does for PT:R.
I still want the theatrical versions rereleased, as apart from the new yoda, the bluray and dvd versions have stupid changes.
More importantly though, I want all the unused material released in HD, though I highly doubt that happening.
If anything I want to see a massive reconstruction of the prequels that take all the material in to account and make the best films possible under the helm of a good director. I would see this happening when Disney gets rights to the prequels, or they would just remake them entirely.
Nien Nunb said:
Yeah, this being a Fox release I wouldn't at all be surprised if it's just a repackaging of currently pressed versions of the Blu-Ray bundled with the 2004 DVDs. Fox loves to repackage shit in all kinds of different configurations.
But they are rereleasing the prequels too, so I would doubt the same discs. they're not going to keep the creepy yoda puppet right beside the cgi one? The TPM bluray is way different than the original theatrical. Plus numerous changes to the OT were made in the 2011 release, that I doubt they would have to blatantly different versions of the films.
If anything, they'll be the 2011 on DVD, unless we find out otherwise.
This could be a good source for the trench run.
TMBTM said:
Okay, this is a little theory of mine,
I did not try it yet, and since I'm not a math guy at all, I could very possibly went wrong with my reasoning.
So...
IF, and only IF center chanel (audio english) and (audio french) share the same EXACT mix (and it is rarely, if never, the case... so I guess all this theory means nothing in the end, lol) then:
Step 1: (audio english) + inverted audio french) = English voices mixed with inverted french voices
Step 2: (audio english) + (English voices mixed with inverted french voices) = (audio french (with french voices being inverted)) mixed with (english voices at volume level X2)
Step 3: (audio french (with french voices being inverted)) mixed with (english at volume level X2) + (audio french) = (audio english (with voices at volume level X2)
Step 4: (audio english (with voices at volume level X2) + (inverted audio english) = .... English voices at original volume level.
Step 5: (audio english) + inverted (English voices at original volume level) = (audio english) minus english voices...
EDIT: All this reasoning is based on the supposition that an inverted audio removes half of the same original audio if its level is twice the same. And this is not a given.
RE EDIT: mmmm step 3 obviously double the music.... I must return to my reasoning, lol.
You're workflow is getting there, but I'm not sure it's perfectly right.
In regards to the mix, no mix in the prequels are the same. On the original DVD's, other languages were 2.0 and are now 5.1 on the bluray. But since the english track is 6.1 DTS-HD (which has more dynamic range), is certainly not the same mix. The original DVD's used a 5.1 dolby mix, but those are different movies, the runtimes don't add up exactly.
The new 2013 rereleases might have a matching mix, as the DVD's in the combo pack require a 5.1 English mix, and the disc is said to have the other languages in 5.1 as well. So the new set, might work. Though, I won't be entirely certain till the full press release, and even then who wants to buy the movies again (though if this method really works, it would be well worth it.) I do have a non-star wars bluray, where I know the english and french DTS-HD mixes match. I'm using it to test the theory.
Fang Zei said:
Re: the whole 3D discussion,
I recall seeing a comparison between the 2D and 3D blu-rays of one of the Ice Age movies. Everything was in focus on the 3D version, while the 2D had depth of field.
This is a whole lot simpler when everything's being rendered in the computer to begin with. You simply do separate renders. But when we're talking about actual photography in the real world, it's a bit more complicated.
You just need really thin glass and a very narrow f-stop (f32). It wouldn't be that hard. Standard compact digital cameras have very thin and have virtually no depth of field. However, those cameras can't have f-stops narrow enough to make everything perfectly in focus. i know it is possible, just not sure if an equivalent professional end lens is out there for any of the professional cameras used to shoot films.
And even for rendering, they are adjusting all the camera settings inside the software shot-for-shot just as they would converting no-depth 3d to 2d with depth.
Interesting, doubt it's the OUT, but one can dream. Though will the discs feature new menus and such, specifically the DVD's? I'd find it hard to see them repackaging the 2004 DVD's.
TMBTM said:
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
So, when a movie is shot in 3D, and then "down-converted" to 2D, are areas of the frame chosen to be "blurred" to simulate the depth of field, after-the-fact?
That's what I personally would prefer. But I never saw such a thing, because every 3D movies I saw were shot as a regular 2D movies, meaning with depth of field (on both stereo pictures). A previous poster said that it should be doable to shoot a movie with no depth of field (but technicaly maybe difficult) and that it should be doable to convert it in 2D with depth of field by using the differences between the 2 stereo pictures of the 3D to recreate the blur. At least that's what I understood. the problem would be that in this case almost all the shots would be filled with depth of field effect if you can't specificaly choose what parts of the screen you want to be blurred or not, lol, brain explodes. Must go to bed.
You use the 3D to create a depth map for one of the angles, and can then allow a lens blur tool (say in AE) to reference the depth map. You can then adjust focal point, and strength of the blur (how shallow you want it). you can even keyframe settings to simulate rack focus and stuff. It's extremely simple, but does require shot-by-shot conversion. It's like controling the camera settings after-the-fact.
The only thing to make it better would to use an algorithm specific to simulating depth of field, like field blur from photoshop cs6.
TMBTM said:
I was more thinking of a way to turn a 3D version without depth of field into a 2D version with depth of field. Don't know if it's possible though.
Actually, that is possible to do. the 3D data definitely allows you to add depth of field to the image as it knows the distances between objects and focal points.
Though shooting without depth of field would require a really short lens and a very narrow f-stop which would make the cinematography even harder.
Also, this doesn't have the right depth of field but this video does provide an example of how high enough parallax difference between points makes much more realistic 3D in which your eyes can focus and convolute from and to different points.
Well, atleast the 2D EE Bluray cover art is much better than what we got on the 2D theatrical.
Apparently he's also signed on for Episodes 8 and 9.
That clip was absolutely hillarious, I was laughing so hard.
In case anyone wanted to see this, this is the full Kathleen Kennedy panel interview at Celebration Europe.
And this shows that very technology being utilized.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYeQNH6gJhE
Anyhow, more related to Episode VII. Did anyone else see Oz; The Great And Powerful? It used a couple CGI heavy sequences, but most of the film was practical and mainly used greenscreen as set extensions and matte backgrounds. If they can't match the lack of CGI in the originals, they could maybe atleast do something like Oz.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/07/27/star-wars-episode-vii-focussing-on-character-and-story-first-cg-balanced-with-practical-effects
Slightly more in-depth info on the story and effects. They mentioned the use of models! That makes me so extremely excited right now!
Yes, that's great! Though I just hope he can make a score the quality of the OT. His PT scores aren't really too great (especially when you hear what some faneditors rescore), but if my mind serves me right, Lucas didn't give him enough time to really work on the scores for the prequels. And even then, the movies were so bad he couldn't find inspiration probably.
Well, no matter what, it's good to know John Williams is doing VII. Star Wars wouldn't be Star Wars without all his classic themes.
Okay that's just really confusing there. Either way, I'll match the color inside and out probably, it can be like a sister ship if it isn't supposed to be the tantive IV.
timdiggerm said:
I was really just hoping for a partial list (not even pictures) of interiors that need recoloring to gray.
Oh, okay I see what you mean.
TPM- federation ship in TPM opening and battle.
- Coruscant senate
ATOC- Parts of coruscant city (bar interior, certain buildings, etc.)
- transport ship with Anakin and Padme (maybe)
ROTS- Rebublic and Seperatist ships are gray
- Grevious/Dooku ship interior
-insides of Republic starfighters
-tantive IV matched to ANH
I think that's most of everything.
Examples are coming very soon again. (Finished repairing my computer this morning with new, faster hardware, and now have to reinstall programs which will take a few days.)
I will be showing off many new images and some videos (in HD on Vimeo, though I can only upload in HD once a week so you'll have a new clip weekly.)
I'm hoping to show off work on the deleted scenes, I've been deep in research for upscaling and extracting all possible details while resisting compression artifacts.