Sign In

4K restoration on Star Wars — Page 264

Author
Time

Honestly, I can’t really see a 4K release of the OT or PT happening anytime this year. With Episode IX releasing this December, and a possible Home Video release next April, it could be possible that a UHD release of the entire saga might be planned to coincide with it’s release at that time.

Author
Time

All of this 4k talk has made me completely forget about the 3D versions of I-VI.

TPM got a theatrical 3D re-release in early 2012 but never made it to 3D blu-ray. The stereo conversions of AotC and RotS were finished shortly thereafter but have only been seen at fan conventions.

Then there’s the OT, which they were doing tests on as early as 2007 but was never finished.

TLJ and Solo didn’t even get a 3D blu release Stateside, probably because Disney put out the UHD versions day-and-date with the regular blu’s and wanted to push that as the premium SKU. I’m guessing there’s simply more of a market for home 3D in the UK than there is here.

Author
Time

Yeah, I don’t think I know a single person who even owns a 3D TV. Might have been cool to see those 3D versions theatrically, but I really don’t have any interest in watching them in my living room.

Anyway, I was sure we’d at least get TFA and R1 in UHD for Christmas since there was no new movie in theaters, even if the OT was a long shot. Since that came and went, I’m not expecting anything before IX comes out on disc. Hopefully they’ll do it so that I won’t have to re-buy too much. Be a shame if IX came out in a steel book that matched TLJ but then three months down the road we find out that the only way to get TFA in 4K is in a boxed set. I might hold out on the disc for the first time and just go digital for IX if we haven’t heard by then what’s going on with TFA.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

It doesn’t help that there hasn’t been a new 3D set on the market for a couple years now. Maybe the Avatar sequels will revive the market. That there were two different home systems didn’t help much. Active 3D sets requiring more expensive glasses that need batteries. 4K sets actually do 3D better with no loss of resolution.
I was amazed to find out there was an outboard 3D converter gizmo for 2D sets. It uses the old red/blue system, but from what I’ve read, it works pretty well once calibrated.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

joefavs said:

Yeah, I don’t think I know a single person who even owns a 3D TV. Might have been cool to see those 3D versions theatrically, but I really don’t have any interest in watching them in my living room.

Anyway, I was sure we’d at least get TFA and R1 in UHD for Christmas since there was no new movie in theaters, even if the OT was a long shot. Since that came and went, I’m not expecting anything before IX comes out on disc. Hopefully they’ll do it so that I won’t have to re-buy too much. Be a shame if IX came out in a steel book that matched TLJ but then three months down the road we find out that the only way to get TFA in 4K is in a boxed set. I might hold out on the disc for the first time and just go digital for IX if we haven’t heard by then what’s going on with TFA.

What makes you think they won’t just put out TFA and RO on 4k this year?

It made at least some sense not to do it this past holiday since they needed to push Solo after it underperformed in theaters. Speaking of which, it wouldn’t at all surprise me if Disney does eventually include more of the Lord and Miller footage in an eventual re-release, if only to help recoup their losses. Maybe that’s something they could save for the inevitable over-priced franchise collection, just as the OT deleted scenes were exclusive to the “complete saga” blu-ray.

SilverWook said:

It doesn’t help that there hasn’t been a new 3D set on the market for a couple years now. Maybe the Avatar sequels will revive the market. That there were two different home systems didn’t help much. Active 3D sets requiring more expensive glasses that need batteries. 4K sets actually do 3D better with no loss of resolution.
I was amazed to find out there was an outboard 3D converter gizmo for 2D sets. It uses the old red/blue system, but from what I’ve read, it works pretty well once calibrated.

I’m not a fan of how the “passive” method was implemented at home, with the fpr filter always there over the display and making everything look like you’re watching it through a screen door.

Years ago, Samsung was working on a tv that would’ve used the “active passive” version of RealD’s tech, but it was deemed too expensive.

Maybe Cameron will pressure the industry to figure out a solution in time for Avatar 2’s home release a little over two years from now.

Author
Time

Wouldn’t 4K be more or less pointless for TFA and RO? Movies like that are always mastered in 2K to begin with.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

Wouldn’t 4K be more or less pointless for TFA and RO? Movies like that are always mastered in 2K to begin with.

Rogue One’s DoP Greig Fraser confirmed that the movie was finished in 4k, but it’s unclear at what exact res the vfx were rendered at. There’s still a decent percentage of the movie that’s entirely in-camera, and they used the Alexa 65 with Ultra Panavision lenses which means there was still a good 6k worth of detail for those shots even after they cropped a little off the sides to make it 2.40:1.

TFA turned out differently, at least going by what I’ve read. Abrams’ editing process didn’t give the vfx people enough time to render out the shots at as high of a res as they otherwise could have, and since that’s most of the movie I think it’s effectively stuck in 2k.

Author
Time

It’s more about the HDR than the actual resolution, anyway. I’ve found that the 4K releases of Star Trek (2009) and 10 Cloverfield Lane both look markedly better than the 1080p versions in spite of being 2k upscales because of the color.

Author
Time

Fang Zei said:

All of this 4k talk has made me completely forget about the 3D versions of I-VI.

TPM got a theatrical 3D re-release in early 2012 but never made it to 3D blu-ray. The stereo conversions of AotC and RotS were finished shortly thereafter but have only been seen at fan conventions.

Then there’s the OT, which they were doing tests on as early as 2007 but was never finished.

People still give a shit about 3D? Why can’t that garbage stay dead? I can maybe see a 3D movie shown via a VR headset being worth it, but that’s it. Closest I ever came to enjoying 3D was Avatar in IMAX 3D and the first Hobbit in 48fps 3D, and with both of those I stopped noticing they were in 3D within about half an hour anyway other than having to adjust those stupid-ass glasses, so what’s the point?

a trolling bantha

Author
Time

Watch some 50’s 3D before damning the format, thank you very much.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

The one big financial incentive Disney had for doing a 3D conversion of the OT seems to be gone now since I don’t see them doing a ‘97 style re-release in theaters. The only real reason to do it at this point is simply so that it can exist in that format alongside the other movies, but the in-theater saga marathons the day before Episode IX seem to be the only time and place for it. Even then, I would think most people buying a ticket to that sort of thing would probably prefer to just watch these things in 2D.

I felt kinda sorry for the people who went to the I-VII marathons a little over three years ago who got I-VI in 2D and were then forced to watch VII in 3D. I wonder how Disney handled things for I-VIII a couple years later.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

SilverWook said:

Watch some 50’s 3D before damning the format, thank you very much.

I’ve seen a couple. Dial M for Murder and House of Wax come to mind. It was uncomfortable and unpleasant and probably made me dislike the movies more than I otherwise would have.

I legitimately just don’t understand the appeal in any way.

a trolling bantha

Author
Time

The first movie I ever saw in 3D* was Up in the Summer of 2009. When Avatar came out at the end of that year I ended up seeing it three times, all in 3D. They were all at the same multiplex but the first two times were in smaller auditoriums so it was the 16:9 version. The third was in a bigger theater and was in scope. Avatar ended its run just as they were opening their new LieMax.

Since then I’ve tried keeping my 3D screenings to stuff captured with stereo camera rigs, but there have been a few exceptions and I must admit the post-conversion quality has come a long way.

Speaking of post-conversions, LotR is another “original trilogy” that’s been floated for dimensionalization. It’s probably dependent on how much WB feels like spending the money, but now that Jackson is done with his World War I documentary and FotR’s 20th anniversary is right around the corner I could see him pressuring them to make it happen.

Again, Cameron’s influence will probably be the single biggest factor in all of this. If the Avatar sequels make a big enough splash and we get another Hugo or Gravity or Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk, then Disney will probably see the potential for a 3D OT.

*not counting seeing T2 3D at Universal Orlando in the Spring of 2003

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I personally only watch 3D at home. The 3D in theaters is usually murky and there’s ghosting, so I gave up on that. But at home on the 120" projection screen, it helps to make it feel more like a real theatrical experience, since when watching 3D, I kinda lose the sense of the actual size of the screen, so it sort of smears the difference between sitting close to a smaller screen at home and sitting further away from a large screen in a theater. So I’m not happy at all that home 3D is dying. Luckily, unlike TVs, most new projectors are still 3D capable and so are most new BD players.

  • www.facebook.com/despecialized
  • IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DESPECIALIZED EDITIONS, PLEASE READ THE FIRST POSTS OF THESE THREADS, WHICH HAVE UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION: SW, ESB, ROTJ, 97SE RE-ED
    IF YOU DON’T FIND WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING FOR THERE, TRY ASKING IN THE APPROPRIATE THREADS - MOST REGULAR POSTERS KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS AND SOMEONE WILL LIKELY BE ABLE TO HELP YOU.
    IF I GET A PM WITH A QUESTION, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED THROUGH THESE MEANS, IT WILL BE IGNORED. SORRY BUT I AM NOT THE LOCAL INFO BOOTH. THANK YOU.
Author
Time

ChainsawAsh said:

SilverWook said:

Watch some 50’s 3D before damning the format, thank you very much.

I’ve seen a couple. Dial M for Murder and House of Wax come to mind. It was uncomfortable and unpleasant and probably made me dislike the movies more than I otherwise would have.

I legitimately just don’t understand the appeal in any way.

Did you see them in their original format? Most people have seen the classics with the red/blue system which is inferior and cause eye strain. A lot also depends on the technical presentation. Half the 80’s 3D flicks I saw back in the day suffered from dodgy projection or dim bulbs.
I grew up fascinated by 3D. Still have a lot of Viewmaster reels and a pair of lenticular space photos that I need to find a spot on my wall for.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

I saw Dial M on an active 3D Panasonic plasma not long after the Blu-Ray came out. I’d seen Gravity on the same TV and that one didn’t make me go cross-eyed, but the 3D didn’t seem to add much of anything to that movie for me, either.

House of Wax was in a theater years ago. Pretty sure it was 35mm and it wasn’t the red/blue glasses. I don’t remember a ton about it other than that I had to force myself to sit through the last half or so of it and take a bunch of Tylenol after.

a trolling bantha

Author
Time

I know 3D doesn’t work for everyone. Those posters where you’re supposed to see a hidden image when you stare at it for a long while never worked for me either.
Hopefully, the rumors of a glasses free display tech come to pass.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

I saw Gravity on a huge screen on its initial release and it’s one of the few films in recent history I would say was worth seeing in 3-D. Being on a giant screen and in 3-D really created a massively immersive experience. It wasn’t about things coming at you (though they did on occasion) but it more realistically represented the vast distances you were viewing as you gazed out into space. The amount of depth was mind blowing and really made you feel like you were there. I can see how seeing this, even in 3-D, on a smaller screen would not create that same immersive experience. I own the film and have watched it in 2-D on my tv, and it’s still a good film imo. But that theatrical experience was something wild that I just can’t see being replicated at home.

I also saw Rogue One in IMAX 3-D on a full size imax screen. That was also a really cool, memorable experience. However, I had seen the film twice in 2-D beforehand and I would definitely say that’s my preferred way of seeing it. But the imax 3-D was a really cool one time thing that I’m glad I got to enjoy.

Overall I’m not a huge fan of 3-D movies but I do enjoy them as occasional “special experiences” or when the film (such as Gravity) has a compelling reason to actually be in 3-D. I’ve seen Creature From the Black Lagoon in 3-D on 35mm, which was awesome but not the way I’d want to watch the film on a regular basis.

ChainsawAsh, if 3-D movies hurt your eyes or give you headaches I can certainly see why you wouldn’t be a fan of them. It does make me wonder if you have any issues or conditions with your vision causing these troubles? As I mentioned, I don’t watch 3-D movies often at all, but they’ve never caused me any kind of discomfort.

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

I know 3D doesn’t work for everyone. Those posters where you’re supposed to see a hidden image when you stare at it for a long while never worked for me either.
Hopefully, the rumors of a glasses free display tech come to pass.

Those posters are a different thing, though. You have to intentionally misalign your eyes so that each one sees the proper field to create the stereoscopic image. It’s a skill not everyone finds easy to learn (I could never get them to work as a kid, but as an adult years later I find them rather easy to do). But for 3-D movies, the only necessary “skill” is putting on a pair of glasses…

Author
Time

canofhumdingers said:

SilverWook said:

I know 3D doesn’t work for everyone. Those posters where you’re supposed to see a hidden image when you stare at it for a long while never worked for me either.
Hopefully, the rumors of a glasses free display tech come to pass.

Those posters are a different thing, though. You have to intentionally misalign your eyes so that each one sees the proper field to create the stereoscopic image. It’s a skill not everyone finds easy to learn (I could never get them to work as a kid, but as an adult years later I find them rather easy to do). But for 3-D movies, the only necessary “skill” is putting on a pair of glasses…

That’s interesting, as I can do the cross-eyed 3D stuff fairly well. And I don’t exactly have the greatest eyesight in the world.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Ok, I take back what I said about the magic eye images. I thought you had to cross your eyes to align the fields, but then I went and googled how they actually work. Crossing your eyes can work but so can just holding the picture at the right distance and focusing your vision “through” the picture (like you’re looking at something further away behind it.

But either way,it takes some kind of skill and muscle control of your vision (which isn’t necessarily related to the quality of your vision…) to make it work. As opposed to movies where you wear the glasses and they do the work for you.

Author
Time

There is a lot to be said for and against both 3D and 4k. I don’t think most viewers will actually get much out of 4k in films. Especially older films. However, one thing to consider is that the compression used to put them on disk is less obvious at higher resolutions. So even a 2k film upscaled to 4k is going to look better on home video than it will in 2k. I’m just disappointed that the 4k TV’s seem to be exclusivly geared to 4k content instead of tuning them to display the best 480p, 720p, 1080p, and 4k possible.

I think 3D is a novelty. It doesn’t help the story telling or the immersion. I find it annoying because the filmmaker has to direct your focus and when you watch the film you can’t refocus on other things. So it isn’t very realistic. I saw TFA in 3D and I regret that. It was a horrible experience. I prefer to stick with 2D at 2k for the time being.

Author
Time

It’s a 67 year old novelty then. (Not counting early experiments before the 1950’s.) I’m still waiting for talking pictures to go away. This sound gimmick is a flash in the pan I tells ya! 😛

And it’s not the format’s fault the market is being flooded with bad post conversions, (the good ones are few and far between) theaters where the gear is being maintained by the snack bar guy, and filmmakers who are too timid to take full advantage of the technology.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

This sound gimmick is a flash in the pan I tells ya! 😛

Truth be told, cinema lost a part of its soul with the introduction of sound.

THIS SPACE FOR RENT