4K restoration on Star Wars — Page 134

Fang Zei said:

DominicCobb said:

doubleofive said:

Last time I saw Pablo comment, he said this:

@pablohidalgo said:

As far as I know, there’s only one person who could make this happen and he hasn’t seemed all that interested.

He’s apparently shifting this onto Lucas. Which doesn’t make sense if Fox and Disney are meeting with Verta on his restoration. But if they had one of their own, they wouldn’t be meeting with Verta saying “we have one, thanks.” I guess we’ll find out at Celebration.

I don’t think the assumption that this refers to to Lucas is accurate.

I wonder then who the “he” in Pablo’s tweet is referring to.

Probably someone in charge of home video distribution?

DominicCobb said:

Fang Zei said:

DominicCobb said:

doubleofive said:

Last time I saw Pablo comment, he said this:

@pablohidalgo said:

As far as I know, there’s only one person who could make this happen and he hasn’t seemed all that interested.

He’s apparently shifting this onto Lucas. Which doesn’t make sense if Fox and Disney are meeting with Verta on his restoration. But if they had one of their own, they wouldn’t be meeting with Verta saying “we have one, thanks.” I guess we’ll find out at Celebration.

I don’t think the assumption that this refers to to Lucas is accurate.

I wonder then who the “he” in Pablo’s tweet is referring to.

Probably someone in charge of home video distribution?

Could he be referring to Horn or Iger?

nickyd47 said:

Go to Amazon and search Return of The Jedi. This is what I saw…

We had all this discussion and I forgot to ask, how exactly did you stumble upon this?

I sent them feedback about it, so hopefully they’ll correct this.

I just checked again on my phone. The mobile-optimized site doesn’t list running times but it does list the original release year for each movie.

RotJ still says “theatrical version” in parenthesis. Hopefully someone responds to your feedback, Wazzles.

doubleofive said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Fang Zei said:

moviefreakedmind said:

doubleofive said:

Last time I saw Pablo comment, he said this:

@pablohidalgo said:

As far as I know, there’s only one person who could make this happen and he hasn’t seemed all that interested.

He’s apparently shifting this onto Lucas. Which doesn’t make sense if Fox and Disney are meeting with Verta on his restoration. But if they had one of their own, they wouldn’t be meeting with Verta saying “we have one, thanks.” I guess we’ll find out at Celebration.

He didn’t pitch his meeting as an offering of the unaltered version of Star Wars.

What exactly was the situation with that meeting?

Did it ever even happen?

I have no idea if it happened, I just know that the way he described it seemed like something that could have easily been misinterpreted as having little to do with Star Wars. It’s hard to say though.

It happened, and Disney said it wasn’t up to them and set a meeting with Fox.

Thank you for the first explanation I’ve read of what went down.

moviefreakedmind said:

doubleofive said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Fang Zei said:

moviefreakedmind said:

doubleofive said:

Last time I saw Pablo comment, he said this:

@pablohidalgo said:

As far as I know, there’s only one person who could make this happen and he hasn’t seemed all that interested.

He’s apparently shifting this onto Lucas. Which doesn’t make sense if Fox and Disney are meeting with Verta on his restoration. But if they had one of their own, they wouldn’t be meeting with Verta saying “we have one, thanks.” I guess we’ll find out at Celebration.

He didn’t pitch his meeting as an offering of the unaltered version of Star Wars.

What exactly was the situation with that meeting?

Did it ever even happen?

I have no idea if it happened, I just know that the way he described it seemed like something that could have easily been misinterpreted as having little to do with Star Wars. It’s hard to say though.

It happened, and Disney said it wasn’t up to them and set a meeting with Fox.

That was his interaction with a Disney person, not the pitch. Either way, he asked not to discuss details on this site so that’ll be the most and last I’ll say of it. He posted in detail on his own forum what the plan was for this month so check that out.

Could you please link me to his site? I used to remember the URL…

Gonna be a long wait till Celebration.

I’ll tell you the answer 4k HDR.

Well it’s a good educated guess the only reason to do a new scan is really to add the HDR. You need to scan it in HDR to get the benefit of HDR.

But there would not be much point in that unless they sort out contrast color issues also anyway.

Just saying It could be good, really good. If it’s done right. It could also look totally different from what you are used to.

Ronster said:

I’ll tell you the answer 4k HDR.

Well it’s a good educated guess the only reason to do a new scan is really to add the HDR. You need to scan it in HDR to get the benefit of HDR.

But there would not be much point in that unless they sort out contrast color issues also anyway.

Just saying It could be good, really good. If it’s done right. It could also look totally different from what you are used to.

It needed a new scan anyway because the old lowry master isn’t even 2k, and even then it had serious issues like wrong color-timing. But the resolution of 35mm is at least 4k, so even if the lowry master looked perfect it was still only 1080p in terms of resolution, so that’s reason enough for a newer scan right there.

The HDR is added later, after the film is scanned in. Movies have been scanned and mastered in 4k for many years, since long before HDR was even invented.

Fang Zei said:

Ronster said:

I’ll tell you the answer 4k HDR.

Well it’s a good educated guess the only reason to do a new scan is really to add the HDR. You need to scan it in HDR to get the benefit of HDR.

But there would not be much point in that unless they sort out contrast color issues also anyway.

Just saying It could be good, really good. If it’s done right. It could also look totally different from what you are used to.

It needed a new scan anyway because the old lowry master isn’t even 2k, and even then it had serious issues like wrong color-timing. But the resolution of 35mm is at least 4k, so even if the lowry master looked perfect it was still only 1080p in terms of resolution, so that’s reason enough for a newer scan right there.

The HDR is added later, after the film is scanned in. Movies have been scanned and mastered in 4k for many years, since long before HDR was even invented.

Film is under 4k resolution about 3K. (areas do need to be cropped out also bear that in mind)

You can’t create color depth or a wider gammut that does not exist in a scan. either you capture it or you do not. You would need to capture it with a high exposure. It would not be any use putting your old DVD VHS or even Blu-ray and add HDR to it.

It would need to be prepared especially to have HDR and a wider color Gammut.

Ronster said:

Fang Zei said:

Ronster said:

I’ll tell you the answer 4k HDR.

Well it’s a good educated guess the only reason to do a new scan is really to add the HDR. You need to scan it in HDR to get the benefit of HDR.

But there would not be much point in that unless they sort out contrast color issues also anyway.

Just saying It could be good, really good. If it’s done right. It could also look totally different from what you are used to.

It needed a new scan anyway because the old lowry master isn’t even 2k, and even then it had serious issues like wrong color-timing. But the resolution of 35mm is at least 4k, so even if the lowry master looked perfect it was still only 1080p in terms of resolution, so that’s reason enough for a newer scan right there.

The HDR is added later, after the film is scanned in. Movies have been scanned and mastered in 4k for many years, since long before HDR was even invented.

Film is under 4k resolution about 3K. (areas do need to be cropped out also bear that in mind)

You can’t create color depth or a wider gammut that does not exist in a scan. either you capture it or you do not. You would need to capture it with a high exposure. It would not be any use putting your old DVD VHS or even Blu-ray and add HDR to it.

It would need to be prepared especially to have HDR and a wider color Gammut.

One estimate I read (for high quality still 35mm, mind you) is 175 megapixels. Still photography covers around 8 sprocket holes, whereas movie film is 4. A 4k 4x3 image is around 12 megapixels. I have also heard that the highest quality film stock can resolve about 6k of resolution. Honestly though, you really can’t compare the two. It’s an entirely different measurement system. No two people will give you the same estimate, and the quality of film stock varies, whereas digital is the resolution it is.

Still photography doesn’t have to capture motion at 24 frames a second, and generally has finer grain, so it’s really tough to get any measurements from comparing the two. This is partly why promotional materials of movies back in the day were special behind-the-scenes stills instead of just still frames from the finished film. But you pretty much said the same thing.

While the exact amount of detail varies between prints and negatives, any piece of film has a limited amount of detail. However the resolution is limited. So you can get a clearer and smoother image as you go up, even if no new detail is revealed.

And wider color gamut and color depth isn’t the main thing about HDR. Essentially you can go deeper into the blacks before clipping (though your room has to be ludicrously dark to most of the advantages), and more importantly vastly higher into whites before clipping, or I should more accurately just say highlights and shadows. The issue with current display standards is that you lose color vibrancy as you go dark or as you go bright. Max brightness can only be white on traditional displays. The idea is to have such values actually still retain color saturation, allowing for color decisions previously not possible. This could be as simple as being able to have the blue sky of the dat actually look bright, more similar to what you’d see with your eye.

Now the dynamic range of your format does affect the amount of detail you can show off as you can’t recover clipped values in a shot, but the details that do exist can be spread across the whole HDR range. Many modern cinema cameras can now have that level of detail to adapt wonderfully to HDR as recording in flat LOG type formats allow for an incredible amount of light information to be compressed into the footage.

Many top notch 35mm film scans currently in existence, I could imagine have plenty enough detail to support an HDR grade.

A well timed and refined HDR grade of these films from a new 4K+ scan of the negatives has the potential to be quite immersive.

Film scans can often capture the full dynamic range (aprox 13 stops) of the film now, though standard displays lack the ability to display all that range at once with about 5 stops range.

Fang Zei said:

nickyd47 said:

Go to Amazon and search Return of The Jedi. This is what I saw…

We had all this discussion and I forgot to ask, how exactly did you stumble upon this?

I was just looking through the digital movies available on Prime Video and noticed that and was like “That wasn’t there before”

It’s been my hope Disney would release the OUT, but I saw this Digital Bits article:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/022417-0100

I don’t know if anyone else saw this, but my hope for an OUT release this year dropped. Don’t delete your Harmy files yet. I sincerely don’t get why Disney just doesn’t do the restoration, especially since they’ve been otherwise sympathetic to fans otherwise.

Someone earlier said the more popular films seem to not get as much love. I don’t believe that to be completely true, but somedays it DOES feel like that.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

This article is comical. What does it even mean that the effects won’t hold up in HD? Does the author realize that for its first few years, Star Wars was only available in better-than-HD quality? (I.e. Film)

https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2017/feb/28/george-lucas-special-edition-star-wars-disney-may-release-unadulterated-version

Facepalm Harmy’s editions look great on my big screen TV and those are 720p. I get that the special editons have better composting, but it’s not like the GOUT’S an eyesore.

It kills me everything someone says something on film can’t look good because “film’s not HD”. No, it’s not… it’s better.

monkeyjb1988 said:

It’s been my hope Disney would release the OUT, but I saw this Digital Bits article:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/022417-0100

I don’t know if anyone else saw this, but my hope for an OUT release this year dropped. Don’t delete your Harmy files yet. I sincerely don’t get why Disney just doesn’t do the restoration, especially since they’ve been otherwise sympathetic to fans otherwise.

“In addition, 20th Century Fox’s Senior Vice President of Library and Technical Services, Shawn Belston, was also on hand at the Wexner event last night. He confirmed that all of the “trims” removed from the original cut negative (in the mid-1990s, to create the SEs) still exist as well.”

We’ve been told so many things from different seemingly reliable sources. It’s hard to believe who and what.

So Disney doesn’t have access to a cleaned up print of Star Wars, but does Fox?

The trims still exist according to them, but that doesn’t mean that they haven’t done anything with 'em.

moviefreakedmind said:

Han Solo IRL said:

Would it be Disney in charge of restoring Star Wars material or Lucasfilm? If it’s the latter then I’m not sure that what Gluck says would even matter. That, and we don’t even know what question he was answering. Better to just reserve all expectations until April rather than go in optimistic or pessimistic.

I agree. I don’t doubt that Gluck knows what he’s talking about, but he wouldn’t be the one to spill the beans if this is actually happening. To my knowledge he didn’t say anything about whether or not restorationists are or have been working on this stuff.

He essentially only confirmed, that the negative of Star Wars is still conformed to the SE. He mentions nothing about the scans of the SE negative or the OOT elements. In other words a digital reconstruction of the OOT can exist, or can be reconstructed, while the physical negative is still conformed to the SE, and the OOT elements are in storage. Furthermore, this does not even preclude the possibilities surrounding Mike V’s Legacy edition, which in principle could be released without any involvement of the original negative or the original OOT elements. I doubt the preservation and restoration people of either Disney or Fox would actually need to get involved, if Lucasfilm itself decides the quality of Legacy is sufficient to be considered an official 4K restoration suitable for release on various media. Also, it’s interesting that the Star Wars show specifically mentions some surprise surrounding the film that started it all, and not the other two films in the trilogy.