logo Sign In

Idea & found on ebay: 16mm film SCOPE Star Wars RETURN of THE JEDI MINT LPP — Page 3

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Mentor
Adamwankenobi:

HiDef is 1280 x 1024
4k is 4096x2160

So the answer is no.
But then again, no digital video can compare to a true film experience.


HD, as shown in the theatres, is 1920 x 1080 x 24p at (guessing here) 4:4:4 log colour. Maybe 4:4:4 linear, since it's DLP, which I'm not sure can display log stuff. (We miss you, Laserman!). Consumer HD is either 1920 x 1080 or 1280 x 720, but not 1280 x 1024.

I think it's a handy, Luddite-type myth that "no digital video can compare to a true film experience". It can, and it does. Especially when digital video is being used to create many film experiences. We're at the earliest stages of digital video, and it can already kick ass. It's only going to get better, and more flexible.

Still, I'm with you: consumer-grade HD ain't no 4k master.

Author
Time
Post link
True, but the point of this is preservation and the standard for cataloguing digital transfers are 4k. All of Warner's classic films have been logged as such. Of course, no one here has the kind of HDD space to do such a thing, but I think we should atleast strive for a HD-DVD quality transfer, due to the mass production of them being right around the corner. We don't want to make a low bitrate transfer of the film now and then have to drag it back out later to upgrade.

Digital film at 4k now captures 99.9% of the information on the film. It's not going to get much stronger for older films. However, the major knock against digital film is that it lack the grain or aliveness that 35mm stock film has. For cinemaphobes, that's a problem.
The Jedi are all but extinct.......
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Karyudo
Originally posted by: Grinder
Is it so hard to do a telecine? I've seen a ROTS version looking as good as the official DVD, when it was out only a week. That must have been a telecine, because as far as I know there haven't been promo DVD's of it.


You talking about the one with TC (time code)? That had to be an inside job -- and digital, to boot.


Rumour has it, that it was someone working for the post-production / captioning house that leaked it.

Save London’s Curzon Soho Cinema

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Hardcore Legend
True, but the point of this is preservation and the standard for cataloguing digital transfers are 4k. All of Warner's classic films have been logged as such.

From 35mm negatives. At best, we're looking at 16mm reduction prints. 2k is likely overkill; HD is probably lots.

However, the major knock against digital film is that it lack the grain or aliveness that 35mm stock film has. For cinemaphobes, that's a problem.


Of course you mean cinemaphiles. If digital lacks grain, then just add some in post! I'm pretty sure you can mess up digital to look like any of the film stocks out there.

Author
Time
Post link
Looks like someone already won the bid.
Rock. Nirvana. Awsomeness.

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/1446/jackson3dg.jpg

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Karyudo
You talking about the one with TC (time code)?


No another one, without timecode. It looked as good as the DVD. I would have uploaded a piece, if I hadn't deleted it when the official DVD came out. But if you really want to telecine something, I'm sure there are ways... there must be.

That's no moon. It's a LaserDisc.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Mentor
Adamwankenobi:

HiDef is 1280 x 1024
4k is 4096x2160

So the answer is no.
But then again, no digital video can compare to a true film experience.


OK, then, will it ever be possible to view a 4K quality transfer on any home video format?
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Adamwankenobi

OK, then, will it ever be possible to view a 4K quality transfer on any home video format?


Maybe. Maybe not. I think the incremental improvement over the current nowhere-near-mainstream-let-alone-over-the-hill HD formats will at some resolution become pointless. Might even be there now, actually. Just not enough people will be able to see enough difference, especially at the small screen sizes we're working with.

And even if 4k does become available, I doubt that you'd be able to tell the difference between that and 1080p, when the source is a 16mm reduction print.

I think most of us would be willing to give our left... leg for a 1080p transfer of the OOT. I don't see there ever being much interest in anything better than that between now and 2025, say. Which is good, because I think even a 1080p transfer will be extremely hard to come by.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Adamwankenobi
Thanks! What is the quality of the current DVD's?


480i/576i at 4:2:0, just like every other DVD. A 1080p transfer would have six times the resolution. But resolution doesn't equal sharpness or contrast or any of that good stuff, necessarily.
Author
Time
Post link
That 16mm print of Jedi was relisted again. Deadbeat bidder!
Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
Post link
i just wish someone on these boards would get it and post more screen caps, those frames really bring me back
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Karyudo
No professional places will touch copyrighted film
Originally posted by: Karyudo
...the one with TC (time code)? That had to be an inside job -- and digital, to boot.

It's all a question of who you know.
Author
Time
Post link
do you guys realise that there wouldnt be thousands upon thousands of posts not just here but in all these star wars related sites, if lucas had left the OT alone and never made the prequels, holy god i cant even imagine that world anymore
Author
Time
Post link
That's true. There wouldn't be all of these arguments if it weren't for his changes.
Author
Time
Post link
would something like this, coupled with a decent camera be adequate?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ELMO-16mm-TELECINE-5-BLADE-PROJECTOR_W0QQitemZ7564899573QQcategoryZ15254QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

maybe a 4:4:4 modified camera like this?

http://www.reel-stream.com/andromeda
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: battlewars
i like adamwankenobi, hes a good kid


Thank you, battlewars.
Author
Time
Post link
siyrobbo,

unfortunately, you can't get comparable results to a real telecine with any kind of home system like the one in the link you posted. Believe me - I've done both.

...unless you want to buy a genuine telecine and install it in your house.
Author
Time
Post link
i dont suppose throwing away a couple of grand just to see is worth it.
Author
Time
Post link
Someone on this board MUST know someone who is capable of getting their hands on this. Where else but "here" could you find people who are so dedicated to the OOT that they would pay thousands for it?
Author
Time
Post link
Hands on what? A print? Easy. A telecine? Not so easy.
Author
Time
Post link
The purpose of getting prints would be working towards an HD master. The X0 project is likely to go as far as possible with an SD version, and the LDs are a decent source for that. My guess is that their results will be so good that there would be no point in spending the time and money it would take on trying to get a new transfer for SD. But the limitations of the LDs will be clearer when compared with forthcoming HD formats.

Yes, it will be hard to get an HD telecine done - but not impossible. Worth considering though is that any one print (or trilogy collection) is not going to be perfect. It will have splices and color issues that won't make an acceptable master on its own. Therefore you'll need to get two or three prints of each movie to make a complete master. Again this can be done - but at what price? A more realistic approach might be to try to arrange to loan prints from a number of collectors who are interested in preservation if and when the telecine connection is made.
Author
Time
Post link
Yeah: from eBay. They turn up from time to time. They're always expensive. As perhaps they should be. I'd be a little disappointed if you could just run down to Wal*Mart and buy a copy of Star Wars on 16mm. Part of the reason prints are expensive is because they're perpetually popular, which is also why this forum exists!