logo Sign In

4K restoration on Star Wars — Page 250

Author
Time

Collipso said:
RotS objectively less than the others but still.

You use that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Author
Time

wouldn’t be mad at disney updating the films unlike the special edition, by rescanning all the original elements and digitally compositing them again now with better tech and higher resolutions, while still ultimately restoring the film to the original theatrical cut, no ‘contemporary’ regrade.

and it’d be cool if all the lightsabers looked as good as they do in TLJ.

though they should probably just compensate mike for his work on Legacy when that’s totally finished and release that first.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I love the flickering, pale, imperfect lightsabers in Star Wars.

That said, a recompositing of the original film elements for an OUT wouldn’t offend me, but I also don’t tend to think it is necessary.

Edit: Also, interesting you mentioned Mike. He mentions in one is his videos (I think his restoration of the Death Star approach), that his work approximates what recompositing would accomplish, noting that that would be ideal. Even a purist like Mike doesn’t shy away from improving upon the O-neg so long as the original photographic elements aren’t altered.

Edit 2: I believe this to be the link:

https://vimeo.com/117582796

TV’s Frink said:

I would put this in my sig if I weren’t so lazy.

Author
Time

The 4K remastering of the modelwork makes the 1997 CGI look even more like trash.

It seems like people are really embracing the new characters. In fact, the big question people ask me now about Star Wars is, “Are Finn and Poe gay lovers?” And really how the f*ck would I know? My second husband left me for a man, so my gaydar isn’t exactly what you’d call Death Star level quality. ----Carrie Fisher

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Humby said:

One of the biggest things that made the prequels so innovative, wasn’t just the use of digital cameras or the amount of CGI or the use of Non-linear editing, etc. It was the COMBINATION of all of these things. Yes, eventually we would have gotten to where we are now. But the sheer amount of advancement in all of these technologies for one film (specifically Ep.2) brought about a good 15 years of advancement in a matter of 3-6 years.

This is all fine and well, but when we talk about “starting a trend”, I think about “inspiring someone else”, not just “providing the technology”.

Ceci n’est pas une signature.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Michael Ward said:

Collipso said:

You can’t deny he was technologically innovative though, since most movies today are shot in digital cameras and Lucas was the one that started the trend.

I don’t find it innovative. The technology already existed and was being used on smaller films. All he did was use it badly.

Eh… it did not really exist. Prior to AoTC, a lot of indie filmmakers were shooting on DV and outputting to film. That was the extent of “digital filmmaking” and no one was claiming that video would overthrow film. And yes, there were smaller experiments using very early high def video but what Lucas did was popularizing digital filmmaking in mainstream cinema and whose quality rivaled film. THIS was the revolution.

Sure, looking back now, the technology is laughably outdated (I’m sure my sony A6000 can shoot footage just as good), but you have to start somewhere and Lucas was brave enough to take that leap.

And like someone else said, shooting digital wasn’t easier, especially in the early days. One problem was the use of small sensors which increases your depth of field. You have to use longer and faster lenses order to work around that, not to mention color compression issues that affect post production etc.

What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.

Author
Time

I didn’t say it was easier, I said it was more comfortable for Lucas. With digital cameras, he could review any scene immediately without leaving his chair. The technical difficulties or the final result didn’t bother him too much. Sure, you can applaud him for spending all that money to further the technology, but it doesn’t change that it was too early. At least the prequels have more problems than just the look, so he didn’t ruin otherwise good movies with this decision.

Ceci n’est pas une signature.

Author
Time

Frank your Majesty said:

I didn’t say it was easier, I said it was more comfortable for Lucas. With digital cameras, he could review any scene immediately without leaving his chair.

They had/have that with film too. It’s called video assist.

Author
Time

It’s not the same, though. Lucas wanted full control and digital cameras gave him more control.

Ceci n’est pas une signature.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

it was too early… seriously, stop it Frank, you tend to be quite ridiculous when you don’t accept you’re wrong.

The Lumière brothers were too early: the first movie in history doesn’t look good by today’s standards !
Méliès was too early: it’s not even 24 fps !
etc.

=> innovation is never too early. I’m shocked to read such conservativ (reactionary) comments on a SW forum, really…

Lucas used a tech that was “more confortable” for him ? Yeah : Lucas is a control freak. All his life he wanted total control over his creation. He accepted a lower salary on the first SW in order to get more control over the final cut. He made of Episode V-VI-I-II-III the most successful INDEPENDANT movies ever ! Yeah: INDEPENDANT (he financed most of the beloved TESB himself !). He missed the point on several occasions, though (the PT has many continuity issues here and there), but it can’t be denied the guy had the same philosophy during his entire career (the failure of the PT has nothing to do with that: TPM is what SW77 could have been without the hard work he put in it and the people to give him advice on many things).

(and by the way, the prequels look good. I’ve rewatched a few AotC scenes on my 55 inch screen - not even the bluray but the kk650 regraded and quite compressed HDTV version - and it looks very good. Even CGI Yoda still looks very impressive for a 16 years old model - and I don’t think people are really able to see any difference between 2K and 4K anyway…).

Like I already said: we can be mad at Lucas for the SE, for the PT, for not letting us get high quality GOUT, for being a very lazy producer (most of what he produced is very bad… 2 Indiana Jones movies included), for destroying the careers of talented people (Marcia Lucas, Gary Kurtz…), etc. But we can’t argue the guy is one of the most important filmmakers of the past decades, like James Cameron, Peter Jackson, Guillermo Del Toro, David Fincher, Steven Spielberg.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

There’s a difference between presenting an innovation and using an unfinished technology in a multimillion dollar project.

Also, if you have to add “for a 16 years old [CGI] model” than it really doesn’t look that good. And TPM looks way better than AOTC.

Are we now excusing any poor decison of Lucas as being brave or innovative?

Ceci n’est pas une signature.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Frank your Majesty said:
Are we now excusing any poor decison of Lucas as being brave or innovative?

MalàStrana said:
Like I already said: we can be mad at Lucas for the SE, for the PT, for not letting us get high quality GOUT, for being a very lazy producer (most of what he produced is very bad… 2 Indiana Jones movies included), for destroying the careers of talented people (Marcia Lucas, Gary Kurtz…), etc. But we can’t argue the guy is one of the most important filmmakers of the past decades, like James Cameron, Peter Jackson, Guillermo Del Toro, David Fincher, Steven Spielberg.

Who’s talking about excusing anything ?

You know, I like RotS and the look of RotS, but I don’t like many narrative decisions about it as well as many artistic decisions (like using only the head of Temuera Morrison placed on CGI clone troopers bodies: I don’t think it was a good decision at all ! I wish he had filmed practical troopers, at least for the close ups, but he didn’t. And I believe he took the less confortable decision when he did that !).

Author
Time

I don’t care about the comfortable part that much, maybe he used digital cameras just to appear innovative and groundbreaking. My point still stands that he used it too early.

Sure, you might call it innovative and influential, but is this CGI-overloaden plastic-looking style really something to strive for? I can only applaud someone for being innovative if their innovation is actually valuable.

And again, I do acknowledge that he advanced the technology, but not that he used it that early.

Ceci n’est pas une signature.

Author
Time

I would agree that the timing wasn’t great on AotC, with a tied schedule and the best CGI artists leaving ILM (and had the movie been postponed of 1 year would have been better at every level). But most of the CGI issues with AotC/RotS are found in many movies of the same period. Blade II and Spider-Man (two of my favorite movies) have both bad CGI models. That’s why I stress the fact CGI Yoda still looks fine today, especially compared to CGI Blade and CGI Spider-Man !

Author
Time

In fact a 2001 french movie called Vidocq was "the first major fantasy film to be released that was shot entirely with digital cinematography, using a Sony HDW-F900 CineAlta camera."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidocq_(2001_film)

Of course no one deny Lucas was the most innovative guy around about that kind technology, but AOTC was beaten by the director of Catwoman…! 😉

Author
Time

A definitive release of the Original Trilogy unaltered and in 4K would sure go a long way toward making some of those who were disgruntled after The Last Jedi happy again.

Author
Time

Yeah this is probably how Disney works… (there might just be a legal issue that prevents them to release it… and I’m not that sure that Disney is even interested in a high quality GOUT release… they still haven’t issued on bluray their entire catalogue 😦).

Author
Time

Frank your Majesty said:

There’s a difference between presenting an innovation and using an unfinished technology in a multimillion dollar project.

Also, if you have to add “for a 16 years old [CGI] model” than it really doesn’t look that good. And TPM looks way better than AOTC.

Are we now excusing any poor decison of Lucas as being brave or innovative?

It seems to me that your distaste for the movies are keeping you beholden to the idea that innovation is only valid if it breeds perfection. But at the end of the day, that is not how innovation works, nor has it ever.

Author
Time

Humby said:

Frank your Majesty said:

There’s a difference between presenting an innovation and using an unfinished technology in a multimillion dollar project.

Also, if you have to add “for a 16 years old [CGI] model” than it really doesn’t look that good. And TPM looks way better than AOTC.

Are we now excusing any poor decison of Lucas as being brave or innovative?

It seems to me that your distaste for the movies are keeping you beholden to the idea that innovation is only valid if it breeds perfection. But at the end of the day, that is not how innovation works, nor has it ever.

Perfection? Doesn’t have to be perfection, we would settle for Good.

:p

Author
Time

dahmage said:

Humby said:

Frank your Majesty said:

There’s a difference between presenting an innovation and using an unfinished technology in a multimillion dollar project.

Also, if you have to add “for a 16 years old [CGI] model” than it really doesn’t look that good. And TPM looks way better than AOTC.

Are we now excusing any poor decison of Lucas as being brave or innovative?

It seems to me that your distaste for the movies are keeping you beholden to the idea that innovation is only valid if it breeds perfection. But at the end of the day, that is not how innovation works, nor has it ever.

Perfection? Doesn’t have to be perfection, we would settle for Good.

:p

Fair enough lol, and I get it, I am by no means a fan of the prequels. But in everything from science, to technology, to even art, innovation is under no obligation to satisfy personal tastes. Similarly, inspiration and influence don’t have a prerequisite of artistic approval.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I’m sorry, I truly think it’s denial to say that Lucas wasn’t innovative and sparked a trend that would dominate the industry years later with the prequels. Really. Not only the digital camera, but also CGI, except that with CGI he wasn’t the sole pioneer. We had JP, LotR, etc etc

But to think that someone went as far as he did, by using digital cameras and going full CGI, that was pretty risky. I respect him for that. Few people have contributed to the cinema industry as much as George Lucas.

Author
Time

Frank your Majesty said:

I didn’t say it was easier, I said it was more comfortable for Lucas. With digital cameras, he could review any scene immediately without leaving his chair. The technical difficulties or the final result didn’t bother him too much.

This is an interesting thought.

I’d heard Lucas wasn’t really an actors’ director from his work on Star Wars (A New Hope), but I was stunned the first time I saw him sitting there on the set of one of the prequels drinking his giant coffee watching actors live on two TV monitors like he was filming a soap opera that had to get five episodes done that week. Isn’t there one behind the scene clip we he mentions sometimes he forgets to yell, “Cut”?

Author
Time

Michael Ward said:

Humby said:

Innovation doesn’t always age well,

I did not find it innovative at the time either.

I’ll refer you to my previous post where I say that innovation is under no obligation to satisfy you personally. The proof is in the pudding, and most of those who work in, or in auxiliary to, today’s digital cinema industry (and care enough to know the history of their chosen career field) agree. Not being personally impressed has no bearing on the matter.