The Shade said:
One thing I noticed for the first time when Luke & Han enter the throne room is looking on the extreme sides and seeing the obviously fake looking "extras".
Maybe some things are better left hidden? :D
Well you're looking at preview images on a (presumably) bright computer screen. When you've got the actual movie in your hands, and you're watching it on a TV or projected, you don't want the image that bright at all.
Red Dwarf said:
Yes the blu came from a better source, but on the other hand the 35mm print would have been projected onto a massive cinema screen without complaints.
"I just saw the brand new movie, Star Wars, last night. While the movie itself was excellent, I couldn't help but be distracted by the fact that it was obviously shot on film, and with soft lenses. Hopefully George Lucas will switch to digital video for the inevitable sequel."
DavidMerrick said:
Well now we're getting into that murky, almost philosophical territory of what the movie's ideal presentation is supposed to be: what's on the negative or what's visible to an audience via a 35mm or 70mm blowup print.
I don't think this is "murky" at all. Whether it's film, or photography, or music, or any other sort of artform, most professionals know how their work will react to different mediums, and will compensate for this in advance.
You wouldn't plan for your movie to look great on a negative, and then release it on 35mm and say "oh well, it is what it is".