Star Wars coming to Blu Ray (UPDATE: August 30 2011, No! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!) — Page 143

I'm guessing there aren't huge glaring changes in the BD. No mention of fixed sabers or anything. Sounds like they probably stuck the 2004 master on BD disc and called it a day.

Until one of us or someone like us sees it, I'm not going to believe anything.

The inclusion of the line "...and we know Lucas will be quite adamant about QC" invalidates the review in my opinion.

i guess they got a bunch of people they knew would say how good the transfers look, but really haven't got a clue what they are saying. Clueless statements, like the above mentioned and the following, invalidated anything that they say in that review for me:

While the newer Star Wars films were ready made for high definition, the older films will obviously suffer a little from the all scrutinizing eye of HD. (The only pre-digital, color sci-fi film that holds up spectacularly well to date is 2001: A Space Odyssey; and to quote Malcolm McDowell out of context, you’re talking about Stanley fucking Kubrick. No offense, Mr. Lucas.)

It's hard to review Star Wars releases when you're gobbling George's balls.

I wanna hear somebody who actually knows about film, review it.

adywan said:

i guess they got a bunch of people they knew would say how good the transfers look, but really haven't got a clue what they are saying. Clueless statements, like the above mentioned and the following, invalidated anything that they say in that review for me:

While the newer Star Wars films were ready made for high definition, the older films will obviously suffer a little from the all scrutinizing eye of HD. (The only pre-digital, color sci-fi film that holds up spectacularly well to date is 2001: A Space Odyssey; and to quote Malcolm McDowell out of context, you’re talking about Stanley fucking Kubrick. No offense, Mr. Lucas.)

Ha! Sucks to be you 2 and 3!!! Go cry to your daddy Lucas!

doubleofive said:

 

adywan said:

i guess they got a bunch of people they knew would say how good the transfers look, but really haven't got a clue what they are saying. Clueless statements, like the above mentioned and the following, invalidated anything that they say in that review for me:

While the newer Star Wars films were ready made for high definition, the older films will obviously suffer a little from the all scrutinizing eye of HD. (The only pre-digital, color sci-fi film that holds up spectacularly well to date is 2001: A Space Odyssey; and to quote Malcolm McDowell out of context, you’re talking about Stanley fucking Kubrick. No offense, Mr. Lucas.)

Same here. Like I said on Facebook somewhere, of course Ep 2 and 3 will look good on this format, they were SHOT at 1080p! The complaints will come next home theater standard, when the other 4 are able to be properly scanned at the resolutions the new formats will be capable of, Ep 2 and 3 will be stuck where they are

 

Well probably the most exceptional looking contemporary fantasy film---Avatar--- was shot at 1080p:

Despite shooting a max of 2K as opposed to 4K, ARRI is confident that their video quality will look just as good as anything shot on RED cameras—partially thanks to a 13.5-stop dynamic range. And they promise that the build quality, reliability and comfort of use will outpace anything released by RED...which is one reason the Alexa is bold enough to cost a minimum of $20,000 more that anything from RED in a shoot-ready configuration. ARRI is also less concerned about the resolution race, citing the fact that Avatar was technically shot in 1080p (Cameron's Fusion camera system is technically just dual Sony HDC-F950s) and no one seemed to complain.

http://gizmodo.com/5511054/arri-alexa-camera-digital-cinematic-bliss

danny_boy said:

Well probably the most exceptional looking contemporary fantasy film---Avatar--- was shot at 1080p:

Despite shooting a max of 2K as opposed to 4K, ARRI is confident that their video quality will look just as good as anything shot on RED cameras—<span style="text-decoration: underline;">partially thanks to a 13.5-stop dynamic range</span>. And they promise that the build quality, reliability and comfort of use will outpace anything released by RED...which is one reason the Alexa is bold enough to cost a minimum of $20,000 more that anything from RED in a shoot-ready configuration. ARRI is also less concerned about the resolution race, citing the fact that <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Avatar was technically shot in 1080p (Cameron's Fusion camera system is technically just dual Sony HDC-F950s) and no one seemed to complain.</span>

http://gizmodo.com/5511054/arri-alexa-camera-digital-cinematic-bliss

doubleofive said:

 

danny_boy said:

Well probably the most exceptional looking contemporary fantasy film---Avatar--- was shot at 1080p:

Despite shooting a max of 2K as opposed to 4K, ARRI is confident that their video quality will look just as good as anything shot on RED cameras—partially thanks to a 13.5-stop dynamic range. And they promise that the build quality, reliability and comfort of use will outpace anything released by RED...which is one reason the Alexa is bold enough to cost a minimum of $20,000 more that anything from RED in a shoot-ready configuration. ARRI is also less concerned about the resolution race, citing the fact that Avatar was technically shot in 1080p (Cameron's Fusion camera system is technically just dual Sony HDC-F950s) and no one seemed to complain.

http://gizmodo.com/5511054/arri-alexa-camera-digital-cinematic-bliss

Well. Huh.

 

1080p which is a negligible 6% difference than cinematic 2K holds up more than well when blown up---below is a list of fans who saw ATOTC in 2002 on IMAX:

Wed Nov 06, 2002 6:40 am
It was in 4x3, or at least something less than 2.35:1 or whatever it was in the theater. The opening shots with the senator's cruiser landing on Coursant are missing the left and right expanses of cloud that were in the analog and DLP versions.

I didn't notice any pixelation.

http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtop...64114&start=40

11-05-2002, 01:21 AM
I saw Attack of the Clones on an IMAX screen at the Smithsonian (http://www.si.edu/imax/) on Friday. I could make out the pores on the face of Natalie Portman. I'm still giddy.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/.../t-142595.html

12/03/02 10:15 PM
I just saw Attack of the Clones on IMAX and here is my question:
The movie was shot in digital (something like 1920 X 1080 pixels I'm told) and transfered to the 70mm Imax format. by my calculations (1080 lines divided by an 80ft. screen) each line should be roughly 1 inch high. But I looked and damned if I could find ANY pixelization, vertical or horizontal. How do they do this?
http://forums.howwhatwhy.com/showfla...-222100&fpart=.

Now this poster noticed some colour issues as opposed to pixelization:

04-28-05, 02:01 AM

In the last DLP/Christie Digital presentation I witnessed -- which was Attack of the Clones in 2002 -- the image had a vertically-ribbed pattern to it, especially noticable in areas of uniform colour, like the blue in the end credits. Maybe I was sitting too close
http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/.../t-531925.html.


Even Lucas himself conducted tests when he blew up 1080 images over and above conventional screen sizes:


Lucas revealed that CineAlta is not only more easily manipulated but can also be blown up more than film. “We’ve done tests [where] we are blowing [digital images] up 50-60 percent on top of it already being blown up to be widescreen and getting an absolutely beautiful image. We had to go a long way before the [digital] image starts to fall apart… We were all shocked, even the guys at ILM.”

http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/content/id...ticlesection=2

Yeah, I seriously think that if there was any other, more advanced home video format, it would increase the bitrate rather than resolution. Many movie theatres have 1080p digital projectors and the PQ is stunning and the studios could use their uncompressed master files made for blu-ray (not necessarily a good thing but the studios would probably support such format for convenience). Even if there were TV screens and home projectors with a 4K resolution, I doubt that at screen sizes that could fit into a reasonably sized living room there would be any perceivable difference between having a true 4K master or an uncompressed 1080p one.

dark_jedi said:

Moth3r said:

zombie84 said:

Mono is sent to the centre channel because, being only one channel, it would be weird if it sent it to the left, or to the right. But in a theatrical setting, you aren't hearing it from one speaker at the front of the house. It is playing through many speakers so as to encompass the full room with front-facing sound. This is why, in a home theatre setting, it is appropriate to send it to all your forward-facing speakers, but namely the left and right which are accoustically positioned to fill your listening space.

I don't believe this is the case. A 1.0 mono soundtrack should play solely through the centre channel (on a film - mono music may be different). The centre channel is normally output by the centre speaker - unless your system doesn't have one, in which case a "phantom centre" is created by outputting the sound through both front left and right speakers.

I suppose it depends on room size to a degree. But again, in any sort of concert or theatre environment, there is no single centre speaker that provides audio for the entire room. Centre-default plays to the reality of one-channel audio, in that it is the most appropriate position if one speaker represents one channel, but it betrays the ideal listening experience. Your left and right speakers will be better manufactured as well, even if your centre channel is of high quality--the left and right are always the best speakers in the set-up, and the ones designed for the widest and furthest sound dispersal.

This is incorrect as well. The centre speaker is the most important speaker in a 5.1 set-up - it accounts for 50% of the soundtrack, as well as nearly all dialogue. It would not make sense to have the centre lesser specified than the front L & R speakers.

Thanks M, this is exactly how I understand it all to work as well, damn I was about to go up to Primetime here and start asking about my Home Theater set up LOL.

 Damn, I discovered that my receiver behave the same way as yours with 2.0 mono as well. My memory of it was that I had to force it to the fronts but that wasn't the case. ;)

TV's Frink said:

This thread has gotten even more nerdy than usual the past few days. ;-)

It doesn't matter, this isn't Star Wars coming to blu-ray anyway, just a badly played cover. ;)

I agree with both of you, zombie and Moth3r. Many mono films were definitely not played through just one speaker in the cinema, but the thing with Dolby Digital 1.0 Mono tracks is, if you spread that out to several speakers in your modern home theater set-up, you can get a sort of unnatural sound where the dialogue in particular is hard to locate, almost like your speakers wasn't phased correctly.

adywan said:

i guess they got a bunch of people they knew would say how good the transfers look, but really haven't got a clue what they are saying. Clueless statements, like the above mentioned and the following, invalidated anything that they say in that review for me:

While the newer Star Wars films were ready made for high definition, the older films will obviously suffer a little from the all scrutinizing eye of HD. (The only pre-digital, color sci-fi film that holds up spectacularly well to date is 2001: A Space Odyssey; and to quote Malcolm McDowell out of context, you’re talking about Stanley fucking Kubrick. No offense, Mr. Lucas.)

 

 

Of course 2001 looks great. It's been well taken care of and was shot in 70mm for later Cinerama projection! It's not your standard 35!!!!

And I take it these people didn't see the Blu-rays of Forbidden Planet, CEoT3K, and the fantastic looking Planet of the Apes and The Day the Earth Stood Still.