- Time
- Post link
Samples would be keen!
- Time
- Post link
Yes, it does have a basic wetgate setup.
Donations welcome: paypal.me/poit
bitcoin:13QDjXjt7w7BFiQc4Q7wpRGPtYKYchnm8x
Help get The Original Trilogy preserved!
Star Wars 1977 releases on 35mm — Page 4
- Time
- Post link
There will be some coming. Each frame comes in at about 110MB so sharing video is a bit of a problem online with my upload speeds.
I am away for about a week or so, but will hopefully be back after that and be able to get back into it again. A good friend of mine contracted meningitis, and unfortunately went into a coma and isn't coming back out of it. I will be away dealing with it for a while.
It's a reminder to make the most of every day.
Donations welcome: paypal.me/poit
bitcoin:13QDjXjt7w7BFiQc4Q7wpRGPtYKYchnm8x
Help get The Original Trilogy preserved!
- Time
- Post link
Sorry for your loss. Keep you chin up!
- Time
- Post link
110 Mb per frame. Yowza.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
- Time
- Post link
That is correct, it is precisely one Yowza per frame.
Which makes each film around 170 kiloyowzas, which is a lot of hard disc space.
Donations welcome: paypal.me/poit
bitcoin:13QDjXjt7w7BFiQc4Q7wpRGPtYKYchnm8x
Help get The Original Trilogy preserved!
- Time
- Post link
170KY=19TB for anyone doing conversions.
Donations welcome: paypal.me/poit
bitcoin:13QDjXjt7w7BFiQc4Q7wpRGPtYKYchnm8x
Help get The Original Trilogy preserved!
- Time
- Post link
And 19TB=168.352KY if you use United States customary units
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
I try to go nowhere near KY* if I can help it.
- Time
- Post link
What resolution were the scans used for the official blurays? I don't know much about motion film, I've been scanning my still photo negatives at 4800 dpi and that works out to about 100mb a frame too. I would love to see a frame of motion film scanned at 4k (or 10k, wow!).
- Time
- Post link
Brooks said:
What resolution were the scans used for the official blurays? I don't know much about motion film, I've been scanning my still photo negatives at 4800 dpi and that works out to about 100mb a frame too. I would love to see a frame of motion film scanned at 4k (or 10k, wow!).
The official blurays were done at 1080p. They were originally for the DVD release.
What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.
- Time
- Post link
Brooks said:
What resolution were the scans used for the official blurays? I don't know much about motion film, I've been scanning my still photo negatives at 4800 dpi and that works out to about 100mb a frame too. I would love to see a frame of motion film scanned at 4k (or 10k, wow!).
http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/savingstarwars.html
This article explains the official restoration process ver well. It's interesting how the first special edition used 2k scans but the DVD/Blu-ray is a 1080p scan
- Time
- Post link
ferrari486 said:
... It's interesting how the first special edition used 2k scans but the DVD/Blu-ray is a 1080p scan
It's weird how Lucas, a special effects guy and early adopter of digital, was so short sighted about the progress digital resolution standards would make.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
There is very little difference in resolution between 2K and 1080P.
I think the restorations and SEs were just done 10 years too early.
Remember the 2K scans were circa 1995, and a 9GB HDD was $2400.
At 4K you are looking at about 20TB per film, minimum, the storage alone, even at the end of 1995 when prices dropped to $300 per GB it would have cost around 6 million dollars to store a single 4K scan of the film, and the computers of the time would really not been able to handle it.
By 2005, storage was down to 70c per gigabyte, suddenly that meant storing a film at 4K was 'only' $14,000.00 worth of storage.
So in 1995, it wasn't so much being short sighted as not really being possible to do much more than they did from a cost and practicality point of view. In march 95 the Pentium 120MHz processor was Intel's fastest chip. Think about the processing power of that beast for a few minutes :) Most people were running Windows 3.1 or DOS in 95, the big boys had Silicon Graphics workstations, but they weren't drastically faster than the Pentiums by this point.
There is a good argument for Disney going back to the negative again and commisioning a new scan, it costs peanuts today compared to 1995 and the quality is so much better.
Heck, I just shelled out $3000 for storage , and I earn $28,000 a year. Disney could afford the time and money to get an archival quality scan of the three original films.
Donations welcome: paypal.me/poit
bitcoin:13QDjXjt7w7BFiQc4Q7wpRGPtYKYchnm8x
Help get The Original Trilogy preserved!
- Time
- Post link
poita said:
At 4K you are looking at about 20TB per film, minimum, the storage alone, even at the end of 1995 when prices dropped to $300 per GB it would have cost around 6 million dollars to store a single 4K scan of the film, and the computers of the time would really not been able to handle it.
Snow White was restored in 4K in 1993. I believe the Cineon system relied heavily on tape storage.
- Time
- Post link
poita said:
There is a good argument for Disney going back to the negative again and commisioning a new scan
Wasn't somebody going to create a new master for the 3D re-release eventually?
- Time
- Post link
<blockquote><p><strong>drngr</strong> said:</p><blockquote>
<p><strong>poita</strong> said:</p>
<p>At 4K you are looking at about 20TB per film, minimum, the storage alone, even at the end of 1995 when prices dropped to $300 per GB it would have cost around 6 million dollars to store a single 4K scan of the film, and the computers of the time would really not been able to handle it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Snow White was <a href="http://www.thefreelibrary.com/DISNEY+CLASSIC+%27SNOW+WHITE%27+UNDERGOES+COMPLETE+DIGITAL+RESTORATION+AT...-a013176723">restored in 4K in 1993</a>. I believe the Cineon system relied heavily on tape storage.</p></blockquote><p> </p>
40 MB per frame, pretty heavy at that time.
- Time
- Post link
drngr said:
poita said:
At 4K you are looking at about 20TB per film, minimum, the storage alone, even at the end of 1995 when prices dropped to $300 per GB it would have cost around 6 million dollars to store a single 4K scan of the film, and the computers of the time would really not been able to handle it.
Snow White was restored in 4K in 1993. I believe the Cineon system relied heavily on tape storage.
Yes it was, I was at Siggraph that year for the presentation, I remember Disney stating that the storage alone (5TB) was just over 10 million dollars.
And that is 1993 dollars, which is 16million 2013 dollars, and that doesn't include the cineon and operator costs.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=10000000&year1=1993&year2=2013
It is a shame that they didn't do a 4K scan of Star Wars at the time, but understandable, the total scanning cost alone would easily have been tens of millions of dollars, a big spend. It doesn't seem that long ago, but in 1993 VHS was king and DVD didn't even exist yet...
Donations welcome: paypal.me/poit
bitcoin:13QDjXjt7w7BFiQc4Q7wpRGPtYKYchnm8x
Help get The Original Trilogy preserved!
- Time
- Post link
I'll be offline for about a week or two, if anyone needs to contact me please use my direct email.
Donations welcome: paypal.me/poit
bitcoin:13QDjXjt7w7BFiQc4Q7wpRGPtYKYchnm8x
Help get The Original Trilogy preserved!
- Time
- Post link
Thanks for the fascinating insights. I'm sorry to hear about your friend, have a safe trip -B
- Time
- Post link
Brooks said:
ferrari486 said:
... It's interesting how the first special edition used 2k scans but the DVD/Blu-ray is a 1080p scan
It's weird how Lucas, a special effects guy and early adopter of digital, was so short sighted about the progress digital resolution standards would make.
I don't think it was so much short-sightedness as a cavalier attitude about the DVD and Blu Ray releases. Which, as you said, is weird!
In the early 2000s, the talk was that George didn't want to release the DVDs, he was waiting for all 6 movies to be released and then to release them on whatever high-def format prevailed at that time (source, anyone?). The choice to even release DVDs seemed like a giving-in to public pressure.
I was very, very peripherally involved in the DVD process - I worked in the vault at Technicolor (the entertainment industry's mailroom) and I was in charge of the safe where the digital masters (mostly standard def digi-betas) were kept- I had access to retrieve stuff and return it for about a week while the DVDs were assembled.
During that time, I had a chat with the main colorist (whose name is escaping me, sorry!- it's in the DVD Easter Eggs somewhere) who did Star Wars and Jedi for the DVDs. (Someone else was in charge of Empire).
He described the conditions: temporary tables set up in a rented room. Fast turnaround times. I guess I naïvely assumed that this was quick and dirty only for DVD. The fact that the same masters were used for the Blu-Rays was a real downer, though they do look pretty good!
Still, this didn't sound at all like the 70s and 80s George Lucas talking about 1100 lines, high-definition, and the necessity of film preservation, does it?
- Time
- Post link
During that time, I had a chat with the main colorist (whose name is escaping me, sorry!- it's in the DVD Easter Eggs somewhere) who did Star Wars and Jedi for the DVDs. (Someone else was in charge of Empire).
He posts in Steven Hoffman's forum as Vidiot.
- Time
- Post link
Joel said:
...In the early 2000s, the talk was that George didn't want to release the DVDs, he was waiting for all 6 movies to be released and then to release them on whatever high-def format prevailed at that time (source, anyone?). The choice to even release DVDs seemed like a giving-in to public pressure.
I remember reading that also during those years before the dvd's were released. Something about Lucas not liking dvd because it didn't support his thx audio?? I mainly remember thinking it was odd that dvd wasn't up to his standards but vhs was (weren't there even officially released vcd's overseas? THAT was acceptable, and not dvd??).
That's a neat story about your involvement with the dvds. Were the star wars scans used for the dvds (and apparently blu rays) stored there on standard def digit-betas? What an awesome sounding job you had!
- Time
- Post link
Brooks said:
THAT was acceptable, and not dvd??).
That's a neat story about your involvement with the dvds. Were the star wars scans used for the dvds (and apparently blu rays) stored there on standard def digit-betas? What an awesome sounding job you had!
RE: VHS vs DVD, yeah, that was the first crack in the seams, wasn't it?
I think (and this is conjecture based on how I understood the normal processes at the time) the digi-betas were just the sub-masters for the DVDs. The Hi-Def (2K or 1080, not sure how they're stored) masters were, IIRC, D5 tapes.
And the job was SUPER fun. Low paying, but maybe my favorite job ever. As you an imagine, getting to be the Star Wars gate keeper was an exciting honor, even though it just meant not telling anyone what was in the new safe for a few days.
- Time
- Post link
Joel said:
... getting to be the Star Wars gate keeper was an exciting honor, even though it just meant not telling anyone what was in the new safe for a few days.
you should have worn emperor's royal guard robes!