BmB

Well a curve is a distortion unless the image is corrected for the curve, so I don't see how it's more immersive.

"Cold Logic", "Cold Reality". Hah. Try using actual logic and observation instead of blanket statements and we might get talking. What you probably really meant to say was "I don't believe it".

Personally I don't know. Kubrick obviously was trying to say something. There's a lot of good points in favour and a lot of good points against. What seems to be likely is some sort of hybrid answer, i.e. they faked the first one or two to "win" the space race and then went on to actually go.

At any rate, if anybody could fake it, t'was Kubrick.

I think 4k is rather pointless for any display that fits in your average living room. Blu-ray's image quality is appreciably perfect. And "HD" broadcasting is a joke. It's just another number they can make higher instead of actually improving the display.

As for OLED, I'm quite excited. LCD is a piece of shit. It's not exactly laser TV but it's pretty damn good.

But why on Earth curve a display that doesn't have viewing angle problems???

Wesker said:

I would prefer an actor that resembled, at least to a certain extent, a young Sebastian Shaw.

vbangle said:

So the real answer is, No, not any time soon. That's all you had to say.

So is this going to come out anytime soon? I'm stupidly giddy at the prospect of seeing a real 35mm scan.

"lightspeed" is heavily implied to be ludicrously fast. Fast enough that the stars streak out and that going to the other side of the galaxy is a matter of hours. Which incidentally is sort of consistent with the scale of a real galaxy. The comment by the imperial officer is probably just hyperbole to make a point, but still, really damn fast.

While sublight speed is implied to be more in the range of actual lightspeed, going between yavin and the death star only taking a few minutes and flying to another system being feasible at all. It's never really specified how long it takes for them to get to bespin. Judging by the intercutting with luke, at least a couple of days. Although lukes' training is probably heavily time compressed. Of course, they do seem to have a very loose use of the term system, so you never know.

What's really interesting is that luke is never shown to go into hyperspace either when travelling from hoth to dagobah or from dagobah to bespin. Or even from tatooine to dagobah and back to sullust in ROTJ. I guess you could say it was implied. But you do have that rather lengthy scene of him just chatting to r2 while flying.
Were x-wings even supposed to be able to go to hyperspace before the massive hyperspace jump in ROTJ?

It's possible the stellar density is simply very high. You have to remember that here on earth we're in the outer rim of our own galaxy in a rather empty neighbourhood. The density can get as much as 500 times more dense according to estimates. Although this still doesn't explain tatooine which is supposed to be in a similarly remote corner of the galaxy.

In the end, it doesn't really matter. This isn't Star Trek, and you don't have to justify every little thing as long as it works on screen.

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

I like it!  I'd wear a shirt like that, especially if it had a picture of CPY on it.

But CPY isn't an inconsistency... CPY is awesome.  An inconsistency is Anakin telling a senator that he just killed an entire village, and the senator not having him arrested immediately.  It would be like the Newtown kid showing up at City Hall and the mayor saying "oh, that's ok, it's human to get mad now and then".

Is that how he got enough dosh to buy cloud city?

Maybe I do. I consider myself to have average vision but I don't actually know what average is and I have never had my vision tested as such. I doubt it, I know what 5K should well be able to resolve and that seemed just about right for the screen. It was very good but not good enough.

The 70mm I saw was material shot on 65mm. No blowups.

You really are desperate for my experience of film as superior to be invalid.

Alright, lookie this here, proof!
http://www.smashboxdigital.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/SBD-TEAM.C009_C017_072848.0000585_5120-PIX.jpg
5K frame out of the very same kind of camera. I found a bunch of others and this frame is sharper than the average. And even on the sharpest bit near the middle guys teeth it's visibly lacking in definition. In fact, this is exactly what I saw in The Hobbit.
It's a very good image but it's not comparable to what I saw in 2001.

The equivalent for grain is not noise. Grain is like a pixel that can be put anywhere.

And I certainly did not see a lousy screening, it was probably the best I possibly could have gone to.

IMAX is theoretically better but I feel they blow it up too far and lose some of that clarity in the process. Certainly doesn't help when it gets blown up on a dome.

Anything sourced from 4k will not compete with film that much I can say.

CP3S said:

Blurry? I saw no blurriness. It was probably the sharpest image I have ever seen. Perhaps my experiences with 70mm are too limited.

zombie84 said:

Yeah, The Hobbit was probably the best looking movie I have seen. It was a level of clarity beyond anything. I think you are romanticizing 70mm. A lot of 70mm are grainy and look pretty bad. It's definitely not clear. Film can't be clear due to the existance of grain.

CP3S said:

Really? A candle? I've never seen a 70mm film that looked like that.

As good looking as the hobbit in 5k 48 and 3d and all that jazz was, it still did not hold a candle to 70mm.

I don't think film is dead just yet.

Also is it just me or was this an INCREDIBLY LOUD film? I thought it was just the theater cranking the volume to unhearable/dangerous levels like they usually do, but this theater has a good track record with volume levels and I've seen several films with great volume levels in there. I also noticed the quiet scenes were just about right, so I'm thinking it was just a problem with the actual mixing of the film.

Warbler said:

could have sworn it was 60fps, but  I am of course no expert.

I'm thinking since the 3D effect dulls the image, gives people headaches and has strange frame doubling issues here and there and generally adds very little depth to most scenes, that it should really just be scrapped until a better technique comes along.
And because of the fact that the image did not quite compete with 70mm.

That we would be better off going for 8k. I can imagine 8k @ 48fps being quite the spectacle.

SilverWook said:

You must hate watching the films this site revolves around then.

SilverWook said:

There's no reason the two formats can't coexist. Films are still being made in black and white even.

I hope to never see 24fps rear it's ugly flickery head again.

5k was great too, not quite 70mm. But defi better than 35mm.

3D effect still seemed a bit off tho. Bit of judder here and there.

I don't understand this attachment to 24fps, it only exists because film is expensive. I guess you like lots of blur and a very flat lifeless look? I want the film to disappear so I can see into the screen as if it was really there. In the same way 70mm does for clarity, 48fps does for motion.

I guess it's the same way that people playing video games have gotten so used to jaggies that they actually complain about antialiasing. Stupid.

But TIE's shoot green too. They're small.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Eh, I still don't like it. It smacks of outright unoriginality. A better idea would have been to have gone with a souped-up Star Destroyer or something along those lines.

I feel this is appropriate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E32Q8JsFaHw

Double toast.

Borg cubes were never implied to have been built over the course of a few months. They also are not the size of small moons nor do they have to generate enough power to obliterate a planet.

Not even comparable.

It's too ridiculous and removes any sense of grounding. Sort of like lightsaber battles in PT.

I don't mind them eventually attempting to build another one, but having only a single movie without 'stars is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy too soon.

Multiple death stars is out of the question. One is ridiculous enough.