Indy BluRay pushed off til 2010, what does that mean for SW? — Page 5

Okay, I got a question:

What exactly is the "resolution" of the final masters for AOTC and ROTS? I'm not talking about the HD "camera negatives" but the actual resolution of the final masters. I'm wondering because the Lowry guys were very specific back in 2004 about how they were working on the OT-SE at 1080p, which means the SE is now "stuck" at that resolution. TPM was shot on film just like the OT, but just about every shot went through the computer at what couldn't be more than 2K (The final master was on film anyway since DI was a brand new thing at the time; Lowry will likely restore it at 1080p for the "ultimate edition" just like they did for the '04 OT set). AOTC was shot on a bleeding edge camera with a vertical resolution of 1080 (I'm not sure if the horizontal was a full 1920 though). ROTS had a better camera, with full 1920 by 1080. A funny thing about the "one complete saga" idea is that we go from a scope lens in TPM, to spherical in AOTC and ROTS, only to go back to scope for the OT. I wish Lucas had shot AOTC and ROTS with scope lenses, if only to keep a visual continuity with the anamorphic lens distortion of TPM and the OT.

In case you're wondering, yes, some movie actually did just that (digital cinematography with a cinemascope lens). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CineAlta read the second paragraph of the "History and use in motion pictures" section.

I guess I'm specifically wondering what the highest resolutions that the PT was worked on were. We know that AOTC and ROTS were projected digitally at 2K, but does that mean the fx were actually done at that rez or was that simply a slight upscaling for the digital projection? My guess would be the latter. I saw ROTS in digital and it wasn't anything all that amazing in terms of resolution, even back in '05. So I'm guessing whenever Lucas finally finishes the 3D conversion of the films, TPM and the OT will simply be upscaled to 2K in projection just like AOTC and ROTS.

The AOTC and ROTS camera "negatives" (the tapes, anyway) are 1080p. The ROTS model I didn't think improved the resolution, it just gave perks like uncompressed color space and user-oriented upgrades, though I could be wrong. So whatever the "master" of AOTC and ROTS is, resolution wise it is still just your standard HD. I have no idea what the master is, but especially at that time it was standard practice to do your FX at the same res as the camera, and I can't see why this should be an exception--possibly they were done at 2K res, but the difference is so negligable anyway, in any case many of them are integrated into 1080p resolution live-action plates.

It's kind of sad how the Star Wars saga has been perpetually downgrading in image quality--you'd think things would be improving with technology!

1977-1983 OT: Full 35mm anamorphic resolution --wOOt

1997 SE: Partial 35mm anamorphic resolution, with partial 2K res for anything with a special effect or new element in it --its not so bad, par for the course for the 1990s

1999 TPM: 2K resolution scan from 35mm anamorphic original --shame, but at least it came from film in the first place

2002 AOTC: primitive 1080p HD original --low-quality res of low-quality image

2004 SE V2: 1080p scan of 35mm original for home video use --wow, so now Star Wars can never be shown theatrically in a competetive quality

2005 ROTS: slightly less primitive 1080p HD original --is this really worth considering an "upgrade"?

It's indicative of Lucas' fascination with digital technology.

After he shot AOTC in HD and knew he was going to be doing the same with Ep3, he probably thought "well, these two movies are always going to be stuck at that resolution, so I certainly don't want to remaster the SE at any higher a rez. At least I can remove all the dust, dirt and scratches."

The problem isn't that it's "considered sub-standard now," it's that, compared to 35mm film, it was sub-standard then, too.

But it doesn't really matter since the vast majority of ROTS was CG anyway - the maximum resolution of that film, even if it were shot on 35mm, would have been limited by the resolution of the CG shots - and I don't think there's a shot in that film that doesn't have at least some CG in it.

Ugh stuff like that frustrates me. One of the reasons that I like TPM the most of the Prequels is just for the reason it was filmed on 35mm. You can always redo CG for a higher resolution but you can't upscale the resolution of the actors. Which will definately cause some problems for AOTC and ROTS in coming years.

Yeah, except it's not like they're ever gonna redo all that cg in a higher resolution. I doubt they were even considering "hey, should we save the camera negatives for when we can do the effects at an even higher rez than 2K someday?" The processed version of the shots were considered the final version. Lowry will simply remaster TPM someday just as they did the OT. They didn't have the '97 effects shots saved on a computer in '04, Lowry had to restore them just like every other shot on the OT's negatives. If you look closely there's even a little framedrift still there. It will likely be the same situation for TPM. They'll restore it in 1080p to remove dirt, dust and scratches, but there might still be some framedrift and other anomolies. Just as with the OT, they'll never be able to erase some telltale signs that it was shot on film. Even though AOTC and ROTS are forever stuck at 1080p, Lucas probably cares more about the fact that he was able to completely cut film out of the equation.

ChainsawAsh said:

The problem isn't that it's "considered sub-standard now," it's that, compared to 35mm film, it was sub-standard then, too.

But it doesn't really matter since the vast majority of ROTS was CG anyway - the maximum resolution of that film, even if it were shot on 35mm, would have been limited by the resolution of the CG shots - and I don't think there's a shot in that film that doesn't have at least some CG in it.

ChainsawAsh, was the CG work done in AOTC and ROTS and TPM in 1080p? I doubt it was even done in 720p. Considering the computers they were working with back then, were probably shittier than the ones Adywan is working with now.

Janskeet, I seriously doubt it was any less than 1080p. I just don't think it was any more than that either.

Yeah, Janskeet, no one in their right mind, now or then, would ever do CG on a film meant to be shown theatrically at less than 1080p (honestly, less than 2K is crazy IMO, though 2K and 1080p are so close the difference is almost negligible).  Even on films like T2 from 1991 would have been done at 2K (I think, but don't quote me on that, I could be wrong).

ChainsawAsh said:

Yeah, Janskeet, no one in their right mind, now or then, would ever do CG on a film meant to be shown theatrically at less than 1080p (honestly, less than 2K is crazy IMO, though 2K and 1080p are so close the difference is almost negligible).  Even on films like T2 from 1991 would have been done at 2K (I think, but don't quote me on that, I could be wrong).

I wonder if this is why the CGI work looked so good in T2 compared to more recent films. The artists (yes, they used to have artists in the business) were so contientious of the CGI blending in with the film they actually put enough time into it to look good at 1080p an beyond. I wonder if the CGI designers working for Lucasfilm, ILM, and the entire industry in general even consider that their work will eventaully be viewed at high resolutions. I didn't see Fantastic Four and the Silver Surfer (or whatever the hell it was called) but the silver surfer looked terrible in it. If I was oblivious to movies I would've predicted that the silver surfer was created before the T-1000.

If you ask me, digital cinematography sucks. It's ideal for amatuer filmmakers and home recordings, but if you are really serious about making a film than you should use film. I'm a little confused though what constitutes cinematography as digital or film? I've worked with cameras that had a film media (tapes that were like audio cassestes but made for video recording) and were instantly playable on computers after recording. I don't know if they analog or digital?

Digital doesn't actually cost less. The rental price of a camera like the Genesis is way more than a Panaflex to start. Okay so you save on film stock and developing--but you have to have an HD tech on set at all times, sometimes more than one, and you are paying these guys over $30 an hour. Plus, your DP has to take more time in his lighting, so you will have 100 people standing around at scale wage for an extra hour a day, and then you will have post-production costs involving transfering from the HD tapes. In the end, maybe its cheaper, but just barely, and when you are spending $30 million for a run-of-the-mill movie and $200 million for a blockbuster movie what the hell is a measely $50,000 when it makes the whole film look so much nicer?