logo Sign In

Post #606836

Author
Atilla the Hut
Parent topic
3D STAR WARS for the masses...has ARRIVED!
Link to post in topic
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/606836/action/topic#606836
Date created
9-Nov-2012, 8:41 PM

Harmy said:

Even if it was so, the current version is still stuck at 1080p plus it isn't really all that detailed to begin with:

720p has approx. half the resolution of 1080p, yet when scaled down to 720p and then upscaled back up to 1080p, the BD master definitely doesn't lose half the detail, so that effectively means that the 1080p master doesn't really use all the resolution 1080p has to offer.

Interesting...

I can tell the 720p image is a lower resolution than the 1080p image from the grain structure, BUT the detail appears identical. For the longest time I used to be under the impression a 35mm release print had some sort of amazing resolution. After I got a blu ray player and saw a few films then went back to the local cineplex, I started to question that. Then I found out that a release print was sub 720p on average due to the generation loss in contact printing. That and most new films used a 2k DI meaning if the HD version was sourced from the DI it would be hands down better than the release print (unless heavily compressed). Now the local cineplex has 4k DCI equipment so that's not a problem (and comfy seats... and a full bar)

Seeing this comparison makes me wonder how much extra detail could be extracted via a modern higher scan (with the OCN). For a film like SW, I would hate to see them not try.

 

Fang Zei said:

No, they used the OCN. That's why the '04 master still holds up in full HD: the scan Lowry was working with was capturing all that detail of the original source, even if the scanner was only 2K.

But you're still missing my original point, which is that Lowry was only working at HD resolution (whether it was 1080 anamorphic or 817, either way it was only 1920 horizontal). That's an hdtv master, not a cinema master. The prequels had actual 2K masters (Clones and Sith were shot at 1920, but the effects shots and everything else in the movie were rendered and finished at full 2K). I somehow doubt even Lucas would want the OT looking even worse than the prequels.

 

I knew what you meant. :) I would like to see a new scan too, for peace of mind, preferably at 8k. I've also read they scanned the OCN, but I also read (on this site I think, links in archived posts) that OCN=1997 SE which is an internegative two generations from the OCN. I know secret history of star wars says the OCN was disassembled and reassembled with SE footage, but that contradicts what Rick McCallum said in an old interview. The OCN was disassembled, but I don't think it was re-assembled with SE footage like Kaminski wrote. All the sources conflict with themselves and since we're not in the loop, who knows?

I just wanted to point out that the 2004 source was indeed scanned in at least 2k. The de-graining stuff was done at 1080p, but the scan was not 1080p like I've seen several people on the internet claim. Can't scan a scope film at 1080p. Well I guess you could, but it would be 1200x1080p or something like that