I’d be really surprised if they didn’t announce a 40th Anniversary Blu-Ray set, so there’s still some hope, at least until May.
Disney is run by putzes.
Disney seems to have completely forgotten the idea and vision behind EPCOT’s Future World, and it’s a hollow shell of it’s former self. They genuinely have no clue how to properly handle anything with an ounce of good in it.
If you ask me, the degradation of EPCOT has less to do with Disney’s managing style and more to do with the forward-thinking, technocratic attitudes of the 50’s and 60’s having been replaced with left-wing attitudes like hyper environmentalism, social programs for the dumb and lazy, and political correctness at any cost.
Is this really the place for this?
Disney is run by putzes.
Disney seems to have completely forgotten the idea and vision behind EPCOT’s Future World, and it’s a hollow shell of it’s former self. They genuinely have no clue how to properly handle anything with an ounce of good in it.
If you ask me, the degradation of EPCOT has less to do with Disney’s managing style and more to do with the forward-thinking, technocratic attitudes of the 50’s and 60’s having been replaced with left-wing attitudes like hyper environmentalism, social programs for the dumb and lazy, and political correctness at any cost.
Is this really the place for this?
Is any place really the place for it?
Disney is run by putzes.
Disney seems to have completely forgotten the idea and vision behind EPCOT’s Future World, and it’s a hollow shell of it’s former self. They genuinely have no clue how to properly handle anything with an ounce of good in it.
If you ask me, the degradation of EPCOT has less to do with Disney’s managing style and more to do with the forward-thinking, technocratic attitudes of the 50’s and 60’s having been replaced with left-wing attitudes like hyper environmentalism, social programs for the dumb and lazy, and political correctness at any cost.
Is this really the place for this?
Is any place really the place for it?
Yup, the Oval Office.
You showed me bigly.
My friend confirmed the 2011 changes.
That still doesn’t confirm that it wasn’t a 2k dcp from the new 4k master. Tack said last summer that the roadshow had all the same changes as the 2011 version but that everything else looked different in terms of color/contrast/grain.
Fang Zei said:
Tack said last summer that the roadshow had all the same changes as the 2011 version but that everything else looked different in terms of color/contrast/grain.
Link?
What exactly does it mean for the negative to be disassembled?
The negative has been conformed to the SE since 1997. George decided to cut the changes directly into the negative because, as far as he was concerned, the SE was the official version of the movie now.
We recently got confirmation from the relevant person at Fox that the pieces of the negative replaced for the SE were indeed put into storage and not discarded.
I think I remember reading on zombie’s website that the negative need not be disassembled to reconstruct the unaltered version. Because a modern restoration would be done digitally anyway, they would simply need to take a scan of the o-neg as it is now, scan in the pieces that got replaced, and rebuild everything in the digital realm.
For further context, the negative is the first-generation source for the footage used in the final cut. They are also without any color timing as that comes later in the process, and unlike a 35mm print, which is a few generations down from the negative, there is only one layer of grain to deal with (this is not the case with SW as there is optical compositing).*
*if I’ve made any mistakes, please correct me.
Would any IPs or separation masters still be usable and around?
Nothing I’m reading here suggests ANY hope for a remastered OOT.
The separation masters are still intact, as are other film elements closer to the o-neg than the theatrical prints.
Robert A. Harris emphasized several years ago that “these assets are well-protected.” If a user on the blu-ray.com forums is to be believed, Disney has been meticulously going through every last piece of Star Wars film material and scanning them in. It’s simply a matter of time … and of timing.
I hate to be eternally negative, but A) why believe this, and B) how much time?! I’m not getting any younger.
“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death
What exactly does it mean for the negative to be disassembled?
The negative has been conformed to the SE since 1997. George decided to cut the changes directly into the negative because, as far as he was concerned, the SE was the official version of the movie now.
We recently got confirmation from the relevant person at Fox that the pieces of the negative replaced for the SE were indeed put into storage and not discarded.
I think I remember reading on zombie’s website that the negative need not be disassembled to reconstruct the unaltered version. Because a modern restoration would be done digitally anyway, they would simply need to take a scan of the o-neg as it is now, scan in the pieces that got replaced, and rebuild everything in the digital realm.
For further context, the negative is the first-generation source for the footage used in the final cut. They are also without any color timing as that comes later in the process, and unlike a 35mm print, which is a few generations down from the negative, there is only one layer of grain to deal with (this is not the case with SW as there is optical compositing).*
*if I’ve made any mistakes, please correct me.
Would any IPs or separation masters still be usable and around?
Nothing I’m reading here suggests ANY hope for a remastered OOT.
The separation masters are still intact, as are other film elements closer to the o-neg than the theatrical prints.
Robert A. Harris emphasized several years ago that “these assets are well-protected.” If a user on the blu-ray.com forums is to be believed, Disney has been meticulously going through every last piece of Star Wars film material and scanning them in. It’s simply a matter of time … and of timing.
I hate to be eternally negative
I see what you did there.
What exactly does it mean for the negative to be disassembled?
The negative has been conformed to the SE since 1997. George decided to cut the changes directly into the negative because, as far as he was concerned, the SE was the official version of the movie now.
We recently got confirmation from the relevant person at Fox that the pieces of the negative replaced for the SE were indeed put into storage and not discarded.
I think I remember reading on zombie’s website that the negative need not be disassembled to reconstruct the unaltered version. Because a modern restoration would be done digitally anyway, they would simply need to take a scan of the o-neg as it is now, scan in the pieces that got replaced, and rebuild everything in the digital realm.
For further context, the negative is the first-generation source for the footage used in the final cut. They are also without any color timing as that comes later in the process, and unlike a 35mm print, which is a few generations down from the negative, there is only one layer of grain to deal with (this is not the case with SW as there is optical compositing).*
*if I’ve made any mistakes, please correct me.
Would any IPs or separation masters still be usable and around?
Nothing I’m reading here suggests ANY hope for a remastered OOT.
The separation masters are still intact, as are other film elements closer to the o-neg than the theatrical prints.
Robert A. Harris emphasized several years ago that “these assets are well-protected.” If a user on the blu-ray.com forums is to be believed, Disney has been meticulously going through every last piece of Star Wars film material and scanning them in. It’s simply a matter of time … and of timing.
I hate to be eternally negative, but A) why believe this, and B) how much time?! I’m not getting any younger.
Combining the separation masters will not yield the same quality as that which can be derived from a scan (or even a photochemical replication to a first generation interpositive) from the original negative.
A massive chunk of the original negative was lost/damaged beyond repair from the scene where Supes confronts Lex Luther in Superman The Movie.
For the restoration in 1999, they recombined the separation masters to recreate that scene.
But the colors were slightly out of sync and the resolution noticeably compromised.
Lucas has already gone on record saying that the separation masters for Star Wars were not preserved correctly(Fox were to blame).
So the original negative is the only salvation for Star Wars.
I saw Star Wars in 1977. Many, many, many times. For 3 years it was just Star Wars...period. I saw it in good theaters, cheap theaters and drive-ins with those clunky metal speakers you hang on your window. The screen and sound quality never subtracted from the excitement. I can watch the original cut right now, over 30 years later, on some beat up VHS tape and enjoy it. It's the story that makes this movie. Nothing? else.
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=SkAZxd-5Hp8
My friend who is a projectionist talked to the projectionist at Celebration for us:
https://twitter.com/mumbles3k/status/853102458909978624
Spoke to the projectionist at #SWCO and confirmed that these are the same 2K DCPs used for the OT Blu-rays. No 4K (except for Rogue One).
I seriously question just how confidently the Orlando projectionist can actually state which master the dcp is derived from.
Again, let’s not forget Tack’s report on one of the roadshow screenings last summer. I’d be more interested in how the image actually looks in terms of color, contrast, grain, et cetera.
Also, the 2004 masters (the same ones used for the blu-ray) weren’t even done at full 2k resolution. They’re 1920x1080 hd. The Lowry guys were very specific about that during a press conference for the dvd way back in '04.
Anyway, I wonder if we can find out from an attendee in Orlando how the picture actually looks. Of course it would have to be someone who actually knows all the color timing quirks of the '04 master like we do, and I doubt there are many fans there who do.
Empire and Jedi are tonight.
I think the 2004 master was derived from the conventional 2048x1536 resolution scanning parameters (for scanning O-negs) in the early 2000s .This would also conform to the geometrical proportions of a 35mm anamorphic negative frame of film.
I honestly think that the 2004 article which stated that Star Wars was scanned at 1920 X 1080 was an editorial mistake.
You would be cropping out segments of the actual frame if you did scan at this resolution as well as introducing geometric distortions when optically(or digitally) stretching the frame back out to 2:35.
As far I am aware(correct me if i am wrong) the 2004 DVD/2011 Blu Ray features all the picture information(in terms of content-not resolution) when digitally re-scaled to the 2:35 aspect ratio(within the 16:9 HD frame).
This would indicate that it was indeed scanned at 2048 X 1536.
I saw Star Wars in 1977. Many, many, many times. For 3 years it was just Star Wars...period. I saw it in good theaters, cheap theaters and drive-ins with those clunky metal speakers you hang on your window. The screen and sound quality never subtracted from the excitement. I can watch the original cut right now, over 30 years later, on some beat up VHS tape and enjoy it. It's the story that makes this movie. Nothing? else.
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=SkAZxd-5Hp8
danny_boy said:
As far I am aware(correct me if i am wrong) the 2004 DVD/2011 Blu Ray features all the picture information(in terms of content-not resolution) when digitally re-scaled to the 2:35 aspect ratio(within the 16:9 HD frame).
Nvm
My friend who is a projectionist talked to the projectionist at Celebration for us:
https://twitter.com/mumbles3k/status/853102458909978624
Spoke to the projectionist at #SWCO and confirmed that these are the same 2K DCPs used for the OT Blu-rays. No 4K (except for Rogue One).
I seriously question just how confidently the Orlando projectionist can actually state which master the dcp is derived from.
Again, let’s not forget Tack’s report on one of the roadshow screenings last summer. I’d be more interested in how the image actually looks in terms of color, contrast, grain, et cetera.
Also, the 2004 masters (the same ones used for the blu-ray) weren’t even done at full 2k resolution. They’re 1920x1080 hd. The Lowry guys were very specific about that during a press conference for the dvd way back in '04.
Anyway, I wonder if we can find out from an attendee in Orlando how the picture actually looks. Of course it would have to be someone who actually knows all the color timing quirks of the '04 master like we do, and I doubt there are many fans there who do.
Empire and Jedi are tonight.
I think the 2004 master was derived from the conventional 2048x1536 resolution scanning parameters (for scanning O-negs) in the early 2000s .This would also conform to the geometrical proportions of a 35mm anamorphic negative frame of film.
I honestly think that the 2004 article which stated that Star Wars was scanned at 1920 X 1080 was an editorial mistake.
You would be cropping out segments of the actual frame if you did scan at this resolution as well as introducing geometric distortions when optically(or digitally) stretching the frame back out to 2:35.As far I am aware(correct me if i am wrong) the 2004 DVD/2011 Blu Ray features all the picture information(in terms of content-not resolution) when digitally re-scaled to the 2:35 aspect ratio(within the 16:9 HD frame).
This would indicate that it was indeed scanned at 2048 X 1536.
Yes, but I wasn’t talking about the scanning resolution. I was talking about the resolution of the final master Lowry delivered. The 1920x1080 number doesn’t come from an article, it came straight from the mouth of one of the Lowry guys at the press conference for the dvd back in '04. I had an audio recording of it sitting on my old computer I’ve since gotten rid of. Hamill, Kershner, and Jim Ward (President of Lucasfilm at that time) were also in attendence. There was a part where someone asks the Lowry guys if the new master is 2k and one of them responds “no, 1920x1080 HD,” which probably meant that the actual picture was 1920x817 because of the scope AR, with the black bars filling out the rest.
My friend who is a projectionist talked to the projectionist at Celebration for us:
https://twitter.com/mumbles3k/status/853102458909978624
Spoke to the projectionist at #SWCO and confirmed that these are the same 2K DCPs used for the OT Blu-rays. No 4K (except for Rogue One).
I seriously question just how confidently the Orlando projectionist can actually state which master the dcp is derived from.
Again, let’s not forget Tack’s report on one of the roadshow screenings last summer. I’d be more interested in how the image actually looks in terms of color, contrast, grain, et cetera.
Also, the 2004 masters (the same ones used for the blu-ray) weren’t even done at full 2k resolution. They’re 1920x1080 hd. The Lowry guys were very specific about that during a press conference for the dvd way back in '04.
Anyway, I wonder if we can find out from an attendee in Orlando how the picture actually looks. Of course it would have to be someone who actually knows all the color timing quirks of the '04 master like we do, and I doubt there are many fans there who do.
Empire and Jedi are tonight.
I think the 2004 master was derived from the conventional 2048x1536 resolution scanning parameters (for scanning O-negs) in the early 2000s .This would also conform to the geometrical proportions of a 35mm anamorphic negative frame of film.
I honestly think that the 2004 article which stated that Star Wars was scanned at 1920 X 1080 was an editorial mistake.
You would be cropping out segments of the actual frame if you did scan at this resolution as well as introducing geometric distortions when optically(or digitally) stretching the frame back out to 2:35.As far I am aware(correct me if i am wrong) the 2004 DVD/2011 Blu Ray features all the picture information(in terms of content-not resolution) when digitally re-scaled to the 2:35 aspect ratio(within the 16:9 HD frame).
This would indicate that it was indeed scanned at 2048 X 1536.Yes, but I wasn’t talking about the scanning resolution. I was talking about the resolution of the final master Lowry delivered. The 1920x1080 number doesn’t come from an article, it came straight from the mouth of one of the Lowry guys at the press conference for the dvd back in '04. I had an audio recording of it sitting on my old computer I’ve since gotten rid of. Hamill, Kershner, and Jim Ward (President of Lucasfilm at that time) were also in attendence. There was a part where someone asks the Lowry guys if the new master is 2k and one of them responds “no, 1920x1080 HD,” which probably meant that the actual picture was 1920x817 because of the scope AR, with the black bars filling out the rest.
Maybe you are not remembering that Press exchange correctly.
An 8K,4k or 2k scan of a film negative(or 1st generation Interpositive) has to be re-scaled to 1920 X 1080 for the master of ANY Blu ray title.
In the case of the DVD from 2004, the 1920 x 1080 master(derived from the 2K scan)became the basis for that release.
And this would have been the case for any Standard Def DVD title from the early 2000s(or even now).
Many did not even get this luxury.
A lot of DVD transfers were generated from telecines of 35mm theatrical film prints(be they flat or anamorphic)…the same process used for Laserdisc,Selecta Vision, VHS,Beta and V2000 home video releases of the early 1980s.
The James Bond films(some of them) and Star Wars were among the first set of flicks to get the benefit of 1080p masters(that would subsequently be down rezzed to 480p) for DVD.
I saw Star Wars in 1977. Many, many, many times. For 3 years it was just Star Wars...period. I saw it in good theaters, cheap theaters and drive-ins with those clunky metal speakers you hang on your window. The screen and sound quality never subtracted from the excitement. I can watch the original cut right now, over 30 years later, on some beat up VHS tape and enjoy it. It's the story that makes this movie. Nothing? else.
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=SkAZxd-5Hp8
My friend who is a projectionist talked to the projectionist at Celebration for us:
https://twitter.com/mumbles3k/status/853102458909978624
Spoke to the projectionist at #SWCO and confirmed that these are the same 2K DCPs used for the OT Blu-rays. No 4K (except for Rogue One).
I seriously question just how confidently the Orlando projectionist can actually state which master the dcp is derived from.
Again, let’s not forget Tack’s report on one of the roadshow screenings last summer. I’d be more interested in how the image actually looks in terms of color, contrast, grain, et cetera.
Also, the 2004 masters (the same ones used for the blu-ray) weren’t even done at full 2k resolution. They’re 1920x1080 hd. The Lowry guys were very specific about that during a press conference for the dvd way back in '04.
Anyway, I wonder if we can find out from an attendee in Orlando how the picture actually looks. Of course it would have to be someone who actually knows all the color timing quirks of the '04 master like we do, and I doubt there are many fans there who do.
Empire and Jedi are tonight.
I think the 2004 master was derived from the conventional 2048x1536 resolution scanning parameters (for scanning O-negs) in the early 2000s .This would also conform to the geometrical proportions of a 35mm anamorphic negative frame of film.
I honestly think that the 2004 article which stated that Star Wars was scanned at 1920 X 1080 was an editorial mistake.
You would be cropping out segments of the actual frame if you did scan at this resolution as well as introducing geometric distortions when optically(or digitally) stretching the frame back out to 2:35.As far I am aware(correct me if i am wrong) the 2004 DVD/2011 Blu Ray features all the picture information(in terms of content-not resolution) when digitally re-scaled to the 2:35 aspect ratio(within the 16:9 HD frame).
This would indicate that it was indeed scanned at 2048 X 1536.Yes, but I wasn’t talking about the scanning resolution. I was talking about the resolution of the final master Lowry delivered. The 1920x1080 number doesn’t come from an article, it came straight from the mouth of one of the Lowry guys at the press conference for the dvd back in '04. I had an audio recording of it sitting on my old computer I’ve since gotten rid of. Hamill, Kershner, and Jim Ward (President of Lucasfilm at that time) were also in attendence. There was a part where someone asks the Lowry guys if the new master is 2k and one of them responds “no, 1920x1080 HD,” which probably meant that the actual picture was 1920x817 because of the scope AR, with the black bars filling out the rest.
Maybe you are not remembering that Press exchange correctly.
An 8K,4k or 2k scan of a film negative(or 1st generation Interpositive) has to be re-scaled to 1920 X 1080 for the master of ANY Blu ray title.
In the case of the DVD from 2004, the 1920 x 1080 master(derived from the 2K scan)became the basis for that release.
And this would have been the case for any Standard Def DVD title from the early 2000s(or even now).
Many did not even get this luxury.
A lot of DVD transfers were generated from telecines of 35mm theatrical film prints(be they flat or anamorphic)…the same process used for Laserdisc,Selecta Vision, VHS,Beta and V2000 home video releases of the early 1980s.The James Bond films(some of them) and Star Wars were among the first set of flicks to get the benefit of 1080p masters(that would subsequently be down rezzed to 480p) for DVD.
Which finally brings us back around to my original point, which was that the resolution Lowry finished their restoration at was 1920x1080 HD and not 2048x1080. Jim Ward called it a “digital negative” back in 2004, which might have been considered true at that time given the limits of digital projection technology in the cinema. But even then, I’m pretty sure they were already finishing new movies at actual 2k res (Oh Brother Where Art Thou, Lord of the Rings, etc) and even starting to finish some movies in 4k (Spider-Man 2, released in 2004, was the first 4k DI).
My friend who is a projectionist talked to the projectionist at Celebration for us:
https://twitter.com/mumbles3k/status/853102458909978624
Spoke to the projectionist at #SWCO and confirmed that these are the same 2K DCPs used for the OT Blu-rays. No 4K (except for Rogue One).
I seriously question just how confidently the Orlando projectionist can actually state which master the dcp is derived from.
Again, let’s not forget Tack’s report on one of the roadshow screenings last summer. I’d be more interested in how the image actually looks in terms of color, contrast, grain, et cetera.
Also, the 2004 masters (the same ones used for the blu-ray) weren’t even done at full 2k resolution. They’re 1920x1080 hd. The Lowry guys were very specific about that during a press conference for the dvd way back in '04.
Anyway, I wonder if we can find out from an attendee in Orlando how the picture actually looks. Of course it would have to be someone who actually knows all the color timing quirks of the '04 master like we do, and I doubt there are many fans there who do.
Empire and Jedi are tonight.
I think the 2004 master was derived from the conventional 2048x1536 resolution scanning parameters (for scanning O-negs) in the early 2000s .This would also conform to the geometrical proportions of a 35mm anamorphic negative frame of film.
I honestly think that the 2004 article which stated that Star Wars was scanned at 1920 X 1080 was an editorial mistake.
You would be cropping out segments of the actual frame if you did scan at this resolution as well as introducing geometric distortions when optically(or digitally) stretching the frame back out to 2:35.As far I am aware(correct me if i am wrong) the 2004 DVD/2011 Blu Ray features all the picture information(in terms of content-not resolution) when digitally re-scaled to the 2:35 aspect ratio(within the 16:9 HD frame).
This would indicate that it was indeed scanned at 2048 X 1536.Yes, but I wasn’t talking about the scanning resolution. I was talking about the resolution of the final master Lowry delivered. The 1920x1080 number doesn’t come from an article, it came straight from the mouth of one of the Lowry guys at the press conference for the dvd back in '04. I had an audio recording of it sitting on my old computer I’ve since gotten rid of. Hamill, Kershner, and Jim Ward (President of Lucasfilm at that time) were also in attendence. There was a part where someone asks the Lowry guys if the new master is 2k and one of them responds “no, 1920x1080 HD,” which probably meant that the actual picture was 1920x817 because of the scope AR, with the black bars filling out the rest.
Maybe you are not remembering that Press exchange correctly.
An 8K,4k or 2k scan of a film negative(or 1st generation Interpositive) has to be re-scaled to 1920 X 1080 for the master of ANY Blu ray title.
In the case of the DVD from 2004, the 1920 x 1080 master(derived from the 2K scan)became the basis for that release.
And this would have been the case for any Standard Def DVD title from the early 2000s(or even now).
Many did not even get this luxury.
A lot of DVD transfers were generated from telecines of 35mm theatrical film prints(be they flat or anamorphic)…the same process used for Laserdisc,Selecta Vision, VHS,Beta and V2000 home video releases of the early 1980s.The James Bond films(some of them) and Star Wars were among the first set of flicks to get the benefit of 1080p masters(that would subsequently be down rezzed to 480p) for DVD.
Which finally brings us back around to my original point, which was that the resolution Lowry finished their restoration at was 1920x1080 HD and not 2048x1080. Jim Ward called it a “digital negative” back in 2004, which might have been considered true at that time given the limits of digital projection technology in the cinema. But even then, I’m pretty sure they were already finishing new movies at actual 2k res (Oh Brother Where Art Thou, Lord of the Rings, etc) and even starting to finish some movies in 4k (Spider-Man 2, released in 2004, was the first 4k DI).
The DCP for Star Wars that would be projected in a commercial cinema must be either 2048 X 1080 or 2048 X 1536 as stipulated by the SMPTE.
I think there has a been a lot of confusion that has been disseminated(unintentionally or otherwise) over the years from forums such as these and elsewhere.
For commercial projection they would use the DCP(2048 X 1080).
For Home Video they would use the 1920 X 1080 master which is no different to any other hi-def(or standard def)title on the market.
According to the video engineer who goes by the name of Vidiot(from the Steve Hoffman forum) Star Wars was scanned at 2K using a Spirit 2k scanner. It was also color corrected at this resolution.
Those 2k Files were also manipulated by Lowry for the re-scale for home video(DVD & Blu Ray).
But the DCP had to be 2048 X 1080.
In 2007, for the 30th anniversary, they used a Christie Digital Micromirror Device™ 2K 3-chip DMD DLP Cinema™
(2048 x 1080 pixels) to project all 6 films.
AOTC and ROTS DCPs would be upscaled to 2K.
The OT would use the DCPs which were already at their native 2k resolution for front projection.
I saw Star Wars in 1977. Many, many, many times. For 3 years it was just Star Wars...period. I saw it in good theaters, cheap theaters and drive-ins with those clunky metal speakers you hang on your window. The screen and sound quality never subtracted from the excitement. I can watch the original cut right now, over 30 years later, on some beat up VHS tape and enjoy it. It's the story that makes this movie. Nothing? else.
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=SkAZxd-5Hp8
AOTC and ROTS have a 2K DI anyway. The live action was 1080p with the CGI rendered at 2K.
AOTC and ROTS have a 2K DI anyway. The live action was 1080p with the CGI rendered at 2K.
For which the picture quality of those early Sony HD cameras are easily beat by most mirorless camera’s (Panasonic, Sony, Samsung, etc) today that all range from like $500 to $2000, vastly cheaper I’m sure then how much those cost.
Not to mention many of them shoot 4K. AOTC of which you can tell was the very early days of color grading for a blockbuster film for something sourced digitally because of how god-awful many scenes are in appearance.
Gosh, properly color corrected 4K scans of theatre prints of SW have drastically more rich colors and dynamic range. Puts those Lowry masters to shame. That master’s colors make the films look like old 90’s shows shot on video. They don’t look filmic at all compared to how they are supposed to appear. What many people think make the films feel super dated is the horridly bad colors on the transfer, surely on purpose by Lucas I assume.
My friend who is a projectionist talked to the projectionist at Celebration for us:
https://twitter.com/mumbles3k/status/853102458909978624
Spoke to the projectionist at #SWCO and confirmed that these are the same 2K DCPs used for the OT Blu-rays. No 4K (except for Rogue One).
I seriously question just how confidently the Orlando projectionist can actually state which master the dcp is derived from.
Again, let’s not forget Tack’s report on one of the roadshow screenings last summer. I’d be more interested in how the image actually looks in terms of color, contrast, grain, et cetera.
Also, the 2004 masters (the same ones used for the blu-ray) weren’t even done at full 2k resolution. They’re 1920x1080 hd. The Lowry guys were very specific about that during a press conference for the dvd way back in '04.
Anyway, I wonder if we can find out from an attendee in Orlando how the picture actually looks. Of course it would have to be someone who actually knows all the color timing quirks of the '04 master like we do, and I doubt there are many fans there who do.
Empire and Jedi are tonight.
I think the 2004 master was derived from the conventional 2048x1536 resolution scanning parameters (for scanning O-negs) in the early 2000s .This would also conform to the geometrical proportions of a 35mm anamorphic negative frame of film.
I honestly think that the 2004 article which stated that Star Wars was scanned at 1920 X 1080 was an editorial mistake.
You would be cropping out segments of the actual frame if you did scan at this resolution as well as introducing geometric distortions when optically(or digitally) stretching the frame back out to 2:35.As far I am aware(correct me if i am wrong) the 2004 DVD/2011 Blu Ray features all the picture information(in terms of content-not resolution) when digitally re-scaled to the 2:35 aspect ratio(within the 16:9 HD frame).
This would indicate that it was indeed scanned at 2048 X 1536.Yes, but I wasn’t talking about the scanning resolution. I was talking about the resolution of the final master Lowry delivered. The 1920x1080 number doesn’t come from an article, it came straight from the mouth of one of the Lowry guys at the press conference for the dvd back in '04. I had an audio recording of it sitting on my old computer I’ve since gotten rid of. Hamill, Kershner, and Jim Ward (President of Lucasfilm at that time) were also in attendence. There was a part where someone asks the Lowry guys if the new master is 2k and one of them responds “no, 1920x1080 HD,” which probably meant that the actual picture was 1920x817 because of the scope AR, with the black bars filling out the rest.
Maybe you are not remembering that Press exchange correctly.
An 8K,4k or 2k scan of a film negative(or 1st generation Interpositive) has to be re-scaled to 1920 X 1080 for the master of ANY Blu ray title.
In the case of the DVD from 2004, the 1920 x 1080 master(derived from the 2K scan)became the basis for that release.
And this would have been the case for any Standard Def DVD title from the early 2000s(or even now).
Many did not even get this luxury.
A lot of DVD transfers were generated from telecines of 35mm theatrical film prints(be they flat or anamorphic)…the same process used for Laserdisc,Selecta Vision, VHS,Beta and V2000 home video releases of the early 1980s.The James Bond films(some of them) and Star Wars were among the first set of flicks to get the benefit of 1080p masters(that would subsequently be down rezzed to 480p) for DVD.
Which finally brings us back around to my original point, which was that the resolution Lowry finished their restoration at was 1920x1080 HD and not 2048x1080. Jim Ward called it a “digital negative” back in 2004, which might have been considered true at that time given the limits of digital projection technology in the cinema. But even then, I’m pretty sure they were already finishing new movies at actual 2k res (Oh Brother Where Art Thou, Lord of the Rings, etc) and even starting to finish some movies in 4k (Spider-Man 2, released in 2004, was the first 4k DI).
The DCP for Star Wars that would be projected in a commercial cinema must be either 2048 X 1080 or 2048 X 1536 as stipulated by the SMPTE.
I think there has a been a lot of confusion that has been disseminated(unintentionally or otherwise) over the years from forums such as these and elsewhere.
For commercial projection they would use the DCP(2048 X 1080).
For Home Video they would use the 1920 X 1080 master which is no different to any other hi-def(or standard def)title on the market.According to the video engineer who goes by the name of Vidiot(from the Steve Hoffman forum) Star Wars was scanned at 2K using a Spirit 2k scanner. It was also color corrected at this resolution.
Those 2k Files were also manipulated by Lowry for the re-scale for home video(DVD & Blu Ray).
But the DCP had to be 2048 X 1080.In 2007, for the 30th anniversary, they used a Christie Digital Micromirror Device™ 2K 3-chip DMD DLP Cinema™
(2048 x 1080 pixels) to project all 6 films.
AOTC and ROTS DCPs would be upscaled to 2K.
The OT would use the DCPs which were already at their native 2k resolution for front projection.
Maybe the Lowry guy was only talking about the hd master for dvd and eventual hdtv/blu-ray, but he definitely specified 1920x1080. I suppose it’s possible they finished their cleanup at actual 2k first and then made an hd video master from there, but that’s not what I remember Lowry guy saying.
Lucasfilm’s color-correction would have happened first, so that doesn’t really tell us anything about what exact res Lowry was working at.
Even if the dcp’s being used for these screenings are 2k, they still wouldn’t truly be 2k if they’re being upscaled from a 1920 source. As Wazzles pointed out, even AOTC and RotS had their cgi and color-timing done at 2k.
My friend who is a projectionist talked to the projectionist at Celebration for us:
https://twitter.com/mumbles3k/status/853102458909978624
Spoke to the projectionist at #SWCO and confirmed that these are the same 2K DCPs used for the OT Blu-rays. No 4K (except for Rogue One).
I seriously question just how confidently the Orlando projectionist can actually state which master the dcp is derived from.
Again, let’s not forget Tack’s report on one of the roadshow screenings last summer. I’d be more interested in how the image actually looks in terms of color, contrast, grain, et cetera.
Also, the 2004 masters (the same ones used for the blu-ray) weren’t even done at full 2k resolution. They’re 1920x1080 hd. The Lowry guys were very specific about that during a press conference for the dvd way back in '04.
Anyway, I wonder if we can find out from an attendee in Orlando how the picture actually looks. Of course it would have to be someone who actually knows all the color timing quirks of the '04 master like we do, and I doubt there are many fans there who do.
Empire and Jedi are tonight.
I think the 2004 master was derived from the conventional 2048x1536 resolution scanning parameters (for scanning O-negs) in the early 2000s .This would also conform to the geometrical proportions of a 35mm anamorphic negative frame of film.
I honestly think that the 2004 article which stated that Star Wars was scanned at 1920 X 1080 was an editorial mistake.
You would be cropping out segments of the actual frame if you did scan at this resolution as well as introducing geometric distortions when optically(or digitally) stretching the frame back out to 2:35.As far I am aware(correct me if i am wrong) the 2004 DVD/2011 Blu Ray features all the picture information(in terms of content-not resolution) when digitally re-scaled to the 2:35 aspect ratio(within the 16:9 HD frame).
This would indicate that it was indeed scanned at 2048 X 1536.Yes, but I wasn’t talking about the scanning resolution. I was talking about the resolution of the final master Lowry delivered. The 1920x1080 number doesn’t come from an article, it came straight from the mouth of one of the Lowry guys at the press conference for the dvd back in '04. I had an audio recording of it sitting on my old computer I’ve since gotten rid of. Hamill, Kershner, and Jim Ward (President of Lucasfilm at that time) were also in attendence. There was a part where someone asks the Lowry guys if the new master is 2k and one of them responds “no, 1920x1080 HD,” which probably meant that the actual picture was 1920x817 because of the scope AR, with the black bars filling out the rest.
Maybe you are not remembering that Press exchange correctly.
An 8K,4k or 2k scan of a film negative(or 1st generation Interpositive) has to be re-scaled to 1920 X 1080 for the master of ANY Blu ray title.
In the case of the DVD from 2004, the 1920 x 1080 master(derived from the 2K scan)became the basis for that release.
And this would have been the case for any Standard Def DVD title from the early 2000s(or even now).
Many did not even get this luxury.
A lot of DVD transfers were generated from telecines of 35mm theatrical film prints(be they flat or anamorphic)…the same process used for Laserdisc,Selecta Vision, VHS,Beta and V2000 home video releases of the early 1980s.The James Bond films(some of them) and Star Wars were among the first set of flicks to get the benefit of 1080p masters(that would subsequently be down rezzed to 480p) for DVD.
Which finally brings us back around to my original point, which was that the resolution Lowry finished their restoration at was 1920x1080 HD and not 2048x1080. Jim Ward called it a “digital negative” back in 2004, which might have been considered true at that time given the limits of digital projection technology in the cinema. But even then, I’m pretty sure they were already finishing new movies at actual 2k res (Oh Brother Where Art Thou, Lord of the Rings, etc) and even starting to finish some movies in 4k (Spider-Man 2, released in 2004, was the first 4k DI).
The DCP for Star Wars that would be projected in a commercial cinema must be either 2048 X 1080 or 2048 X 1536 as stipulated by the SMPTE.
I think there has a been a lot of confusion that has been disseminated(unintentionally or otherwise) over the years from forums such as these and elsewhere.
For commercial projection they would use the DCP(2048 X 1080).
For Home Video they would use the 1920 X 1080 master which is no different to any other hi-def(or standard def)title on the market.According to the video engineer who goes by the name of Vidiot(from the Steve Hoffman forum) Star Wars was scanned at 2K using a Spirit 2k scanner. It was also color corrected at this resolution.
Those 2k Files were also manipulated by Lowry for the re-scale for home video(DVD & Blu Ray).
But the DCP had to be 2048 X 1080.In 2007, for the 30th anniversary, they used a Christie Digital Micromirror Device™ 2K 3-chip DMD DLP Cinema™
(2048 x 1080 pixels) to project all 6 films.
AOTC and ROTS DCPs would be upscaled to 2K.
The OT would use the DCPs which were already at their native 2k resolution for front projection.Maybe the Lowry guy was only talking about the hd master for dvd and eventual hdtv/blu-ray, but he definitely specified 1920x1080. I suppose it’s possible they finished their cleanup at actual 2k first and then made an hd video master from there, but that’s not what I remember Lowry guy saying.
Lucasfilm’s color-correction would have happened first, so that doesn’t really tell us anything about what exact res Lowry was working at.
Even if the dcp’s being used for these screenings are 2k, they still wouldn’t truly be 2k if they’re being upscaled from a 1920 source. As Wazzles pointed out, even AOTC and RotS had their cgi and color-timing done at 2k.
According to the Digital Cinema Initiative Protocol (8.2.2.7.) there are only 2 options(2048 X 1080 or 2160 X 4096) for front projection.
So the DCPs for Star Wars had to be at 2048 X 1080 as a MINIMUM requirement.
The DCI protocol specifies that 2048 X 1080 can be upscaled to 4K IF the projector is 4k capable.
There is no allusion to 1920 X 1080 upscales to 2k (which is impractical for any number of reasons).
It also makes no sense for Lowry or ILM to have scanned at 2K…down rezzed to 1080p (for a master)…to only have that upscaled again for 2k commercial projection. That would introduce digital scaling artifacts, something the DCI is firmly against.
I saw Star Wars in 1977. Many, many, many times. For 3 years it was just Star Wars...period. I saw it in good theaters, cheap theaters and drive-ins with those clunky metal speakers you hang on your window. The screen and sound quality never subtracted from the excitement. I can watch the original cut right now, over 30 years later, on some beat up VHS tape and enjoy it. It's the story that makes this movie. Nothing? else.
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=SkAZxd-5Hp8
HD masters actually first started appearing in the mid to late 90’s but of course these were very very low res and by no means measure up today. WB did a number of high scale scans for several of the classic titles early on but it was mainly Sony who led the front in new or spruced up HD or quasi-HD scans. After a certain point they released everything as a “mastered in High Definition” title.
It wasn’t until the advent of BD on the horizon that 4K really began to take off. But still the vast majority of things are 2K scans/workflows and most films are only finished at 2K.
VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader
God, would the Blu-rays even hold up being projected in a theater?
I saw the Jedi blu-ray projected a few years ago at bam in Brooklyn. It was a mess.
I remember posting about it when happened
My friend who is a projectionist talked to the projectionist at Celebration for us:
https://twitter.com/mumbles3k/status/853102458909978624
Spoke to the projectionist at #SWCO and confirmed that these are the same 2K DCPs used for the OT Blu-rays. No 4K (except for Rogue One).
I seriously question just how confidently the Orlando projectionist can actually state which master the dcp is derived from.
Again, let’s not forget Tack’s report on one of the roadshow screenings last summer. I’d be more interested in how the image actually looks in terms of color, contrast, grain, et cetera.
Also, the 2004 masters (the same ones used for the blu-ray) weren’t even done at full 2k resolution. They’re 1920x1080 hd. The Lowry guys were very specific about that during a press conference for the dvd way back in '04.
Anyway, I wonder if we can find out from an attendee in Orlando how the picture actually looks. Of course it would have to be someone who actually knows all the color timing quirks of the '04 master like we do, and I doubt there are many fans there who do.
Empire and Jedi are tonight.
I think the 2004 master was derived from the conventional 2048x1536 resolution scanning parameters (for scanning O-negs) in the early 2000s .This would also conform to the geometrical proportions of a 35mm anamorphic negative frame of film.
I honestly think that the 2004 article which stated that Star Wars was scanned at 1920 X 1080 was an editorial mistake.
You would be cropping out segments of the actual frame if you did scan at this resolution as well as introducing geometric distortions when optically(or digitally) stretching the frame back out to 2:35.As far I am aware(correct me if i am wrong) the 2004 DVD/2011 Blu Ray features all the picture information(in terms of content-not resolution) when digitally re-scaled to the 2:35 aspect ratio(within the 16:9 HD frame).
This would indicate that it was indeed scanned at 2048 X 1536.Yes, but I wasn’t talking about the scanning resolution. I was talking about the resolution of the final master Lowry delivered. The 1920x1080 number doesn’t come from an article, it came straight from the mouth of one of the Lowry guys at the press conference for the dvd back in '04. I had an audio recording of it sitting on my old computer I’ve since gotten rid of. Hamill, Kershner, and Jim Ward (President of Lucasfilm at that time) were also in attendence. There was a part where someone asks the Lowry guys if the new master is 2k and one of them responds “no, 1920x1080 HD,” which probably meant that the actual picture was 1920x817 because of the scope AR, with the black bars filling out the rest.
Maybe you are not remembering that Press exchange correctly.
An 8K,4k or 2k scan of a film negative(or 1st generation Interpositive) has to be re-scaled to 1920 X 1080 for the master of ANY Blu ray title.
In the case of the DVD from 2004, the 1920 x 1080 master(derived from the 2K scan)became the basis for that release.
And this would have been the case for any Standard Def DVD title from the early 2000s(or even now).
Many did not even get this luxury.
A lot of DVD transfers were generated from telecines of 35mm theatrical film prints(be they flat or anamorphic)…the same process used for Laserdisc,Selecta Vision, VHS,Beta and V2000 home video releases of the early 1980s.The James Bond films(some of them) and Star Wars were among the first set of flicks to get the benefit of 1080p masters(that would subsequently be down rezzed to 480p) for DVD.
Which finally brings us back around to my original point, which was that the resolution Lowry finished their restoration at was 1920x1080 HD and not 2048x1080. Jim Ward called it a “digital negative” back in 2004, which might have been considered true at that time given the limits of digital projection technology in the cinema. But even then, I’m pretty sure they were already finishing new movies at actual 2k res (Oh Brother Where Art Thou, Lord of the Rings, etc) and even starting to finish some movies in 4k (Spider-Man 2, released in 2004, was the first 4k DI).
The DCP for Star Wars that would be projected in a commercial cinema must be either 2048 X 1080 or 2048 X 1536 as stipulated by the SMPTE.
I think there has a been a lot of confusion that has been disseminated(unintentionally or otherwise) over the years from forums such as these and elsewhere.
For commercial projection they would use the DCP(2048 X 1080).
For Home Video they would use the 1920 X 1080 master which is no different to any other hi-def(or standard def)title on the market.According to the video engineer who goes by the name of Vidiot(from the Steve Hoffman forum) Star Wars was scanned at 2K using a Spirit 2k scanner. It was also color corrected at this resolution.
Those 2k Files were also manipulated by Lowry for the re-scale for home video(DVD & Blu Ray).
But the DCP had to be 2048 X 1080.In 2007, for the 30th anniversary, they used a Christie Digital Micromirror Device™ 2K 3-chip DMD DLP Cinema™
(2048 x 1080 pixels) to project all 6 films.
AOTC and ROTS DCPs would be upscaled to 2K.
The OT would use the DCPs which were already at their native 2k resolution for front projection.Maybe the Lowry guy was only talking about the hd master for dvd and eventual hdtv/blu-ray, but he definitely specified 1920x1080. I suppose it’s possible they finished their cleanup at actual 2k first and then made an hd video master from there, but that’s not what I remember Lowry guy saying.
Lucasfilm’s color-correction would have happened first, so that doesn’t really tell us anything about what exact res Lowry was working at.
Even if the dcp’s being used for these screenings are 2k, they still wouldn’t truly be 2k if they’re being upscaled from a 1920 source. As Wazzles pointed out, even AOTC and RotS had their cgi and color-timing done at 2k.
According to the Digital Cinema Initiative Protocol (8.2.2.7.) there are only 2 options(2048 X 1080 or 2160 X 4096) for front projection.
So the DCPs for Star Wars had to be at 2048 X 1080 as a MINIMUM requirement.
The DCI protocol specifies that 2048 X 1080 can be upscaled to 4K IF the projector is 4k capable.
There is no allusion to 1920 X 1080 upscales to 2k (which is impractical for any number of reasons).It also makes no sense for Lowry or ILM to have scanned at 2K…down rezzed to 1080p (for a master)…to only have that upscaled again for 2k commercial projection. That would introduce digital scaling artifacts, something the DCI is firmly against.
Then my question would be:
Do you think it’s possible, if Lowry was in fact only working at 1920x1080 res, that a 2k digital cinema master could have been made from the HD master (slightly upscaled at the source) as opposed to it being upscaled on-the-fly by a 2k projector?
One would presumably yield better results than the other.
My friend who is a projectionist talked to the projectionist at Celebration for us:
https://twitter.com/mumbles3k/status/853102458909978624
Spoke to the projectionist at #SWCO and confirmed that these are the same 2K DCPs used for the OT Blu-rays. No 4K (except for Rogue One).
I seriously question just how confidently the Orlando projectionist can actually state which master the dcp is derived from.
Again, let’s not forget Tack’s report on one of the roadshow screenings last summer. I’d be more interested in how the image actually looks in terms of color, contrast, grain, et cetera.
Also, the 2004 masters (the same ones used for the blu-ray) weren’t even done at full 2k resolution. They’re 1920x1080 hd. The Lowry guys were very specific about that during a press conference for the dvd way back in '04.
Anyway, I wonder if we can find out from an attendee in Orlando how the picture actually looks. Of course it would have to be someone who actually knows all the color timing quirks of the '04 master like we do, and I doubt there are many fans there who do.
Empire and Jedi are tonight.
I think the 2004 master was derived from the conventional 2048x1536 resolution scanning parameters (for scanning O-negs) in the early 2000s .This would also conform to the geometrical proportions of a 35mm anamorphic negative frame of film.
I honestly think that the 2004 article which stated that Star Wars was scanned at 1920 X 1080 was an editorial mistake.
You would be cropping out segments of the actual frame if you did scan at this resolution as well as introducing geometric distortions when optically(or digitally) stretching the frame back out to 2:35.As far I am aware(correct me if i am wrong) the 2004 DVD/2011 Blu Ray features all the picture information(in terms of content-not resolution) when digitally re-scaled to the 2:35 aspect ratio(within the 16:9 HD frame).
This would indicate that it was indeed scanned at 2048 X 1536.Yes, but I wasn’t talking about the scanning resolution. I was talking about the resolution of the final master Lowry delivered. The 1920x1080 number doesn’t come from an article, it came straight from the mouth of one of the Lowry guys at the press conference for the dvd back in '04. I had an audio recording of it sitting on my old computer I’ve since gotten rid of. Hamill, Kershner, and Jim Ward (President of Lucasfilm at that time) were also in attendence. There was a part where someone asks the Lowry guys if the new master is 2k and one of them responds “no, 1920x1080 HD,” which probably meant that the actual picture was 1920x817 because of the scope AR, with the black bars filling out the rest.
Maybe you are not remembering that Press exchange correctly.
An 8K,4k or 2k scan of a film negative(or 1st generation Interpositive) has to be re-scaled to 1920 X 1080 for the master of ANY Blu ray title.
In the case of the DVD from 2004, the 1920 x 1080 master(derived from the 2K scan)became the basis for that release.
And this would have been the case for any Standard Def DVD title from the early 2000s(or even now).
Many did not even get this luxury.
A lot of DVD transfers were generated from telecines of 35mm theatrical film prints(be they flat or anamorphic)…the same process used for Laserdisc,Selecta Vision, VHS,Beta and V2000 home video releases of the early 1980s.The James Bond films(some of them) and Star Wars were among the first set of flicks to get the benefit of 1080p masters(that would subsequently be down rezzed to 480p) for DVD.
Which finally brings us back around to my original point, which was that the resolution Lowry finished their restoration at was 1920x1080 HD and not 2048x1080. Jim Ward called it a “digital negative” back in 2004, which might have been considered true at that time given the limits of digital projection technology in the cinema. But even then, I’m pretty sure they were already finishing new movies at actual 2k res (Oh Brother Where Art Thou, Lord of the Rings, etc) and even starting to finish some movies in 4k (Spider-Man 2, released in 2004, was the first 4k DI).
The DCP for Star Wars that would be projected in a commercial cinema must be either 2048 X 1080 or 2048 X 1536 as stipulated by the SMPTE.
I think there has a been a lot of confusion that has been disseminated(unintentionally or otherwise) over the years from forums such as these and elsewhere.
For commercial projection they would use the DCP(2048 X 1080).
For Home Video they would use the 1920 X 1080 master which is no different to any other hi-def(or standard def)title on the market.According to the video engineer who goes by the name of Vidiot(from the Steve Hoffman forum) Star Wars was scanned at 2K using a Spirit 2k scanner. It was also color corrected at this resolution.
Those 2k Files were also manipulated by Lowry for the re-scale for home video(DVD & Blu Ray).
But the DCP had to be 2048 X 1080.In 2007, for the 30th anniversary, they used a Christie Digital Micromirror Device™ 2K 3-chip DMD DLP Cinema™
(2048 x 1080 pixels) to project all 6 films.
AOTC and ROTS DCPs would be upscaled to 2K.
The OT would use the DCPs which were already at their native 2k resolution for front projection.Maybe the Lowry guy was only talking about the hd master for dvd and eventual hdtv/blu-ray, but he definitely specified 1920x1080. I suppose it’s possible they finished their cleanup at actual 2k first and then made an hd video master from there, but that’s not what I remember Lowry guy saying.
Lucasfilm’s color-correction would have happened first, so that doesn’t really tell us anything about what exact res Lowry was working at.
Even if the dcp’s being used for these screenings are 2k, they still wouldn’t truly be 2k if they’re being upscaled from a 1920 source. As Wazzles pointed out, even AOTC and RotS had their cgi and color-timing done at 2k.
According to the Digital Cinema Initiative Protocol (8.2.2.7.) there are only 2 options(2048 X 1080 or 2160 X 4096) for front projection.
So the DCPs for Star Wars had to be at 2048 X 1080 as a MINIMUM requirement.
The DCI protocol specifies that 2048 X 1080 can be upscaled to 4K IF the projector is 4k capable.
There is no allusion to 1920 X 1080 upscales to 2k (which is impractical for any number of reasons).It also makes no sense for Lowry or ILM to have scanned at 2K…down rezzed to 1080p (for a master)…to only have that upscaled again for 2k commercial projection. That would introduce digital scaling artifacts, something the DCI is firmly against.
Then my question would be:
Do you think it’s possible, if Lowry was in fact only working at 1920x1080 res, that a 2k digital cinema master could have been made from the HD master (slightly upscaled at the source) as opposed to it being upscaled on-the-fly by a 2k projector?
One would presumably yield better results than the other.
Of course. You’d never notice the difference between 1080p and 2k.
Well, is it time to fire up the offensive weapons via Twitter?