StarWarsLegacy.com - The Official Thread — Page 93

Leftover aotc material?

Wazzles said:

Possessed said:

I didn’t think it was even full 2k?

The live action is 1080p, the CGI is 2k, and the DI is in 2k, presumably with upscaled live action.

Well, the difference between 1080p (1920 pixels wide) and 2K (2048 pixels wide) is rather negligible.

Possessed said:

Leftover aotc material?

Yes, the scene where Obi-Wan brings Luke to Owen & Beru was actually filmed during AOTC shooting.

TheHutt said:

Possessed said:

Leftover aotc material?

Yes, the scene where Obi-Wan brings Luke to Owen & Beru was actually filmed during AOTC shooting.

Actually, I believe I read that they re-shot the characters for this shot on green screen during RoTS filming anyway. IIRC, they did it to change who was holding Luke. Could have also been for better visual continuity for Ewan, though he had his hood up, I think.

edit: I would have never guessed I was in this thread based on the topic. I must’ve just clicked it like a robot.

So I was wondering, since Legacy is a restoration of the negative, do you guys think an official release would have some more grain put into it to better simulate what was intended to be seen? Because as sharp and clean as Legacy looks, was Star Wars ever intended to be viewed at the level of clarity that the negative is? Or am I just splitting hairs here?

Personally, I’d prefer it to be released as is because once we have it, grain can always be inserted into places where it’s not; but if it already comes with added grain burned into the picture, it can never be removed.

From A print ? Is it not a combination of numerous prints, in order to obtain an image as accurate and sharp as the negative ?

So, what was shown at Celebration Europe?

Laserschwert said:

So, what was shown at Celebration Europe?

I’m curious about this as well. There’s no way it wasn’t some version of the SE, but I’d want to know if it was a newer transfer like RMW’s by some chance.

Would they even be set up to play actual DCPs at the convention? Maybe they just threw the 2011 bd into a fancy player connected to a high-end projector.

UnitéD2 said:

Is it not a combination of numerous prints, in order to obtain an image as accurate and sharp as the negative ?

Yes to the first, no to the second.

towne32 said:

UnitéD2 said:

Is it not a combination of numerous prints, in order to obtain an image as accurate and sharp as the negative ?

Yes to the first, no to the second.

Not 100% as sharp as the negative but Mike has estimated that it’s probably 90-95% of the way there. So it’s still essentially at a much higher quality than anyone saw in theaters.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

theMaestro said:

towne32 said:

UnitéD2 said:

Is it not a combination of numerous prints, in order to obtain an image as accurate and sharp as the negative ?

Yes to the first, no to the second.

Not 100% as sharp as the negative but Mike has estimated that it’s probably 90-95% of the way there. So it’s still essentially at a much higher quality than anyone saw in theaters.

As I understand it, by using multiple prints, he has been able to isolate the negative grain, which is on every print, and preserve it, while removing the print grain, which is unique to each print, thus restoring original detail and preserving filmic quality.

Edit: by original detail, I don’t mean to original level of detail, but rather that the added detail is all original to the negative.

Yeah I get that. The grain that is present on Legacy is what was there on the negative, but not on prints. However, was it ever intended to be viewed at the quality? What I’m getting at is that Lucas surely knew that audiences were going to be seeing a version in theaters that had more grain than the o-neg did. So did that factor into how certain shots were done? Like were certain shots deemed acceptable because he knew that the extra grain in theaters might cover up some shoddy-looking effects? And if that’s the case, wouldn’t the negative-level quality of Legacy be slightly less authentic than a pure theatrical print? But like I said, maybe I’m just thinking too much about this. If anything, grain can always be inserted back into it. And personally, less authentic or not, I would love to see Star Wars at that quality.

I read previously that he degrained while he was doing the restoration, printed it out to a new negative, then scanned that as his master. That way it has natural grain, though not necessarily authentic levels of it.

I trust he knows what the appropriate level of grain is for a master o-neg scan and has matched that rather than preserve the level of grain in the print. Grain is fine, but preserving grain buildup has never made sense to me.

poita said:

That is incorrect. It was not printed out to a new negative.

That’s new information to me. Is it purely digital?

I should hope that’s not true, as it would not only add grain, it would also cause needless generation loss. It’s better to keep everything in the digital realm as much as possible for this kind of project. I for one would much rather see the film restored as clearly as possible than try to recreate precise amounts of grain when I can assure you Lucas never would have wanted any grain at all if he was capable of avoiding it at the time. Grain is something I consider merely an artifact, not an actual part of the original cut.

Density said:

I should hope that’s not true, as it would not only add grain, it would also cause needless generation loss. It’s better to keep everything in the digital realm as much as possible for this kind of project. I for one would much rather see the film restored as clearly as possible than try to recreate precise amounts of grain when I can assure you Lucas never would have wanted any grain at all if he was capable of avoiding it at the time. Grain is something I consider merely an artifact, not an actual part of the original cut.

Grain is an inherent part of the film format. It should be there as it represents what the original film is.

Wazzles said:

Density said:

I should hope that’s not true, as it would not only add grain, it would also cause needless generation loss. It’s better to keep everything in the digital realm as much as possible for this kind of project. I for one would much rather see the film restored as clearly as possible than try to recreate precise amounts of grain when I can assure you Lucas never would have wanted any grain at all if he was capable of avoiding it at the time. Grain is something I consider merely an artifact, not an actual part of the original cut.

Grain is an inherent part of the film format. It should be there as it represents what the original film is.

I’m not saying scrub it so clean that it looks bad or completely sterile, but as much clarity as possible should be extracted from the films while still looking natural. We’re not going to be watching them on a 35mm film projector, we’ll be watching them on digital HDTVs and digital projectors. They should be optimized for the digital format. I don’t get the obsession with artificially recreating the byproducts of past technology that were never intended to be there. If something can be done to remove them with newer technology without overdoing it, then I don’t see the problem with it.