I'm sure someone at the screening will recognize something and write into CHUD or AICN or some other website and they'll post it sometime over the weekend.
Shit, nevermind, he said it was a 4k job of the entire trilogy.
The hell?
Funny, I always thought Alien and Aliens were 4k all the way through. I guess they were just 2k finishes of 4k scans.
As for Star Wars, maybe the work took a long time? Especially if they were working frame by frame at 4k resolution. By "Star Wars" maybe he just means the first movie. Maybe that's all that was done by the time the blu-ray happened in 2011 and so they still used the old master for consistency's sake.
Like I said, there's no footage from Jedi in that demo reel. Maybe they worked on ANH several years ago and only recently worked on Empire.
They could be working on RotJ right now for all we know.
That particular comparison might be the older transfer from 2004. I remember that was one of the big "before and after" examples.
doubleofive said:
Cobra Kai said:
Perhaps not. I hope you're right. But this also would have been before the Disney purchase was finalized if that staffers resume is accurate. I have a hard time believing Lucasfilm would have been working on an OUT restoration at that time, while GL was technically still running the show.Perhaps as a show of good faith to Disney, LFL started having it restored?
The Disney deal didn't happen overnight. It'd been in the works for months when it was announced, so this is entirely possible.
Anyway, I just watched the demo reel and the OT footage in there looks amazing! Very film-like. Even if this is just the SE, something I have no intention of supporting, it would still be nice if they're bringing it up to modern standards.
ETA: There's no footage from Jedi in that reel. Maybe it's that new of a project?
doubleofive said:
AntcuFaalb said:
timdiggerm said:
Sorry, 005, which is which?
I think it's: RMW/GOUT/Blu-ray.Exactly. The colors are different, the flashes look like what the GOUT might look like if it wasn't overblown. Shot 2 is the most telling, the flash is green in the SE and doesn't go as high on Vader's shoulder. I don't know guys....
And I highly doubt they re-did the SE's in 4k from scratch. That's them going back to each original element and the original negative AGAIN, scanning them AGAIN, redoing all of the CG AGAIN.
Not from scratch, but still a fresh 4K scan. I'm pretty sure the '04 scan didn't discriminate between different parts of the negative. The cgi shots from '97 were scanned back in along with everything else. You can still notice filmic anomalies in those shots, some slight wobble and so forth, even after Lowry's clean-up job.
When Spielberg commissioned a new 4K master of Minority Report in 2009 it was a similar thing. The cg shots were simply scanned back in.
If this is in fact a new transfer of Star Wars, I'm sure they could stabilize the '97 shots and make them look as good as possible. Remember, even today a movie's cgi is rarely rendered at anything higher than 2k unless it's being comped into native imax footage or something. Even movies that get 4k finishes only get 2k cg renders if they were shot in 35mm (or the digital equivalent thereof).
A lot to parse there...
Similar colors, but considering it's still presumably the SE that's not too surprising (The GOUT colors aren't entirely accurate anyway).
The flashes actually look different, the translucency is gone.
The image appears more contrasty (in a good way) than the blu-ray.
Framing is opened up very slightly on all four sides.
The lightsaber colors look less exaggerated.
hmmmm.....
What I could see them doing is spacing out a theatrical 3D re-release of the OT-SE from late August / early September to late October / early November of 2015. That's one of the traditional stretches of the year for doing re-releases since there's less competition from big new movies coming out. January-March, when the '97 SE's were released, is another such window.
A September-November re-release would lead pretty perfectly into ep7 in December. They could even do marathon screenings the afternoon before.
Something I'd love to see happen, but probably won't, is a simultaneous theatrical re-release of an OOT restoration for repertory movie houses to show. The AFI Silver in Silver Spring, MD (just outside DC) is doing an Alec Guinness series this summer and it kills me that they're showing the '97 version of Star Wars instead of the genuine article.
It would be impressive if they've been working on it that long and managed to keep it a secret the entire time. On the other hand, the 2008 re-scans of the Indy trilogy were done rather quietly as well, so maybe Disney is taking a similar approach here.
danny_boy said:
Was browsing the web-site of what was formerly Lowry Digital.
It has been acquired by several companies over the years.
Anyways....RelianceMediaWorks is the company that owns Lowry now.
They claim they have done a 4K restoration on the Star wars trilogy.
Goto Projects
Then click on Restoration.
When was the last time you checked the site? Has it always said 4k or is this a recent development?
Not that it would make any sense to call the old project 4k, as I'm pretty sure it wasn't even scanned in at anything higher than 2k and the workflow was 1920:1080. Unless whoever put this website together has no idea what they're talking about, which is possible but unlikely. It even specifies 16-bit. What bit depth (or whatever it's called) was the 2004 job done at?
So yeah, Occam's Razor and all that, but it's a little weird if this is how we're finding out about it.
If it's true, I can't say I'm surprised. Disney was bound to do a new 4k scan of the SE sooner rather than later. Especially because the time to do a grand theatrical re-release of the OT-SE in 3D is in the next year-and-a-half leading up to Episode 7, not afterwards, and I actually would've been more shocked if they were still working off that ancient transfer from 2004.
emanswfan said:
Honestly, I would just prefer to shoot the whole film with the same camera and aspect ratio as I like consistency. I's probably wouldn't have much of a problem with it if it was one of the spinoff films, but this a main episode. It should be more consistent with the original visual style.
BUT, if they have to do it. It should just be one long continuous sequence that changes at a climactic or emotional point. I like how Catching Fire did it (seen here), with having the aspect ratio change make sense somewhat logically in terms of the plot. Also, the shot is dark enough and the bars change slowly enough for it not to be painfully jarring. In the IMAX theatre, it was a true WOW moment. Plus it continued that way for 50 full minutes till the whole arena sequence was complete and they even had the character pass out, between the aspect ratio change back to 2:35:1.
Mission: Impossible 4 also did the slowly-changing bars thing when Ethan Hunt starts his climb up the Burj Khalifa. It was a nice little wink to the audience. They kept the cutaways to interior shots during the climb sequence at the same AR, which means they either shot those in full 15/65 as well or simply used 8/65 or 4/35.
Some of the 50-minute arena scene in Catching Fire was shot in 4/35, since it would've been extremely difficult for the camera man to lug an imax camera around (although they did do exactly that for some of the shots). Getting the proper depth of field for some of the shots was also a factor in using 4/35. Also, as mentioned, there's the issue of recording natural sound without the camera noise.
As for the use of Imax "breaking the tradition," I have way less of a problem with them using a much larger format for certain stretches of the film than I do with them using 2/3" hd cameras for two entire movies. Most people will only be seeing it in constant-height 2.35:1 anyway. The blu-ray and dvd transfer is another issue, but I'd imagine they'd make separate sku's available and would make the constant 2.35:1 version the priority.
AntcuFaalb said:
Fang Zei: Which DC theater is this? I live in Columbia, MD, so I'd like to check it out.
Two in the district, a stone's throw from each other on the mall at the air & space museum and the museum of natural history.
The third is out in Chantilly, VA at the air & space udvar-hazy center near dulles airport.
15/70 prints are expensive to produce, something like 30-50 thousand dollars for a two to two-and-a-half hour movie. TDKR is the only time a Hollywood film has played at all three theaters in the DC area. It was a big summer movie that was gonna do big business at the box office, so Warner Bros could afford to spend some money on it. There were a hundred or so imax prints made of tdkr.
Interstellar is only getting 50 or so imax prints. It's supposed to be the last Hollywood movie released in actual 15/70, as the digital "replacement" for those projectors is coming next year.
35mm, meanwhile, has all but disappeared. Paramount's final domestic release on 35mm was Anchorman 2 last year. They've said they'll continue 35mm distribution for the overseas territories that haven't caught up yet.
Christopher Nolan and his former cinematographer Wally Pfister are big on not only shooting but also finishing their movies on film. Pfister made his directorial debut recently with Transcendence and there were only 79 35mm prints made of the movie.
doubleofive said:
IMAX cameras teased on set.
http://screenrant.com/star-wars-episode-7-imax-tatooine-image/
I wonder if the movie will have shifting aspect ratios then? Seems odd to try to mimic the film stock and cinematography so closely to have some scenes not in 2.35:1...
Yeah, and it better be full 1.44:1 Imax this time!
I skipped seeing Into Darkness in Imax after hearing that they'd matted the large format shots down to 1.66:1 for some reason. They claimed it was to avoid making the aspect ratio switch too jarring for the audience, but I can't help suspecting it had something to do with rendering times and such.
Tobar said:
They call the AMC IMAX screens LieMAX because the screens are so small. I went into one once to see The Dark Knight and the screen was comparable to one you'd find in some people's homes. It was ludicrous.
The new digital projection we have at the 8-story tall IMAX near my house looks brilliant and is still capable of the full IMAX picture format. I think it was the trailer for Guardians of the Galaxy that had some scenes in the full format size and it was breathtaking. It's so big the film engulfs you.
Are you sure it's digital? Imax hasn't rolled out the 4k+4k laser tech at any of their 15/70 theaters yet, not to my knowledge.
ETA: Sorry, I misread your post. You meant that your 15/70 theater has both the film projector and the 2k+2k dlp. I've heard this is the case with several of the old, full-sized theaters out there. It allows them to show more stuff, since not every imax release actually gets the 15/70 treatment.
You mentioned it was the only full-sized theater in your state. Out of curiosity, what state are you in? There's a list of all imax theaters (both film and digital) here:
The digital "liemax" theaters use dual 2k projectors and have a 1.9:1 aspect ratio (real imax is 1.44:1). The biggest of the digital imax screens still aren't as big as the 15/70 screens, even if you're just talking about the width. What Imax did was to take the biggest auditorium at a multiplex and renovate it to make the screen go from wall to wall (which it was almost doing anyway) and floor to ceiling. They also removed the first several rows of seats to make the screen closer to the audience.
I'm not sure how the 2k+2k overlap works for 2d movies, but imax argues that it yields an image greater than 4k. In any event, you're still seeing the dmr'd version of the movie, which is supposed to make everything look better whether it's on actual 15/70 film or dual 2k dlp.
For movies that were shot in actual 65mm imax, like Ghost Protocol, I can only imagine that the effect is greatly diminished in the digital theaters. Smaller screen, lower resolution, cropped aspect ratio, and multiplex seating are all pretty far removed from the genuine article.
Star Trek Into Darkness was the first time a movie had been shot in imax and then converted into 3d. Paramount did this because we're in a post-Avatar movie business now. When Nolan wanted to shoot some of The Dark Knight in Imax back in 2007, that's pretty much all there was aside from 35mm and the equivalent digital projection. 3D hadn't truly "arrived," it was only in a few theaters here and there. Cut to 2012, now there are thousands of 3D theaters and only several hundred imax. Stuff like Ghost Protocol and Dark Knight Rises were now the exception to the rule. The moneymaking potential of 3D now outweighed that of imax.
I never got around to seeing Into Darkness in 15/70 out in Chantilly, although I heard the imax shots were matted to 1.66:1 for some reason. In an interview with the vfx guys they said this was to avoid making the AR switch too jarring for the audience. I can't help but think the real reason had something to do with rendering times and all that, but who knows.
The real question, to me, is how they're gonna handle the imax exhibition of the movie.
Imax is expected to start replacing their 15/70 projectors with the 4k+4k laser projectors they've developed, starting here in DC with the smithsonian's three theaters sometime next year. Right now, the two theaters on the mall in downtown DC are 3D-capable but the one out in Chantilly is 2d-only (the digital conversion will make it 3D-capable as well).
I bring all of this up because episode VII will doubtlessly be converted to 3d.
For Star Trek Into Darkness this wasn't a problem, as Paramount sent a single, 15/70 2D print to Chantilly for opening night and a 3D 15/70 to one of the downtown theaters a couple weeks later. For Star Wars, I wonder if I'll even be able to see it in 4k+4k 2D or if 3d will be my only option as far as imax goes.
Looking at the photo in the tweet makes me want to see what that camera is seeing!
Ah, so he did in fact "talk" about it without literally talking about it.
This isn't the first we've heard about stormtroopers, either. The previous rumor was of chrome-armored troopers and not the white uniforms from the OT.
Smith nodding with a big smile on his face makes me wonder which version he actually saw.
ATMachine said:
Poor choice of words, obviously. No stocks of celluloid were harmed in the making of that pile. ;)
But apparently Lucas actually did film them and then cut them out after an Internet backlash: http://www.ign.com/articles/2002/01/11/nsync-not-nstar-wars-after-all
Go figure. Maybe it was because he was particularly sensitive to that sort of criticism at the time. After all, this was right after the release of TPM so visibly shattered the pedestal he was so accustomed to standing on. He probably grew a thicker skin as the prequels wore on.
This raises a question I've had for a very long time. Maybe Zombie explains it in his book, but what were the big things Lucas changed from his original plans for Episodes II and III after the big TPM backlash?
You gotta wonder just how something like the Falcon's door closing broke his leg. His ankle would've at least made sense, they could've just had bad timing closing the door and it landed on his foot or something. But his leg? How does that happen?
It's worth noting that Roger Guyett was one of the vfx supervisors on RotS before working on Abrams' Trek films and now Episode VII.
Yeah, I actually re-watched it earlier today and it hit me once I saw The Man Behind The Mask. I'll have to get ahold of that silent version sometime, looks cool!
Watching the documentary again, I realize now that the situation with the original negative is actually explained pretty thoroughly, although the whole OOT on video thing still might not be clear to the layman. From what's presented in the movie, the uninformed person might go "I don't get it, they released the original version on dvd. What's everyone complaining about?"
unamochilla2 said:
I'm not familiar with Johnson or his work, yet. Do you think he'll continue using practical effects and real locations or rely more on CGI and green screens? Granted, we don't know how much CGI is in Episode VII and no doubt there will be, but the Abrams team has put a lot of emphasis on using more practical effects and real locations. Also wonder if the next two films will be shot digitally?
Definitely he'll go more practical/real than cgi/greenscreen. Looper has some cgi, but it's used sparingly. Hell, there's little difference between the "looping" effect itself and the jump cuts you see in the original Star Wars.
Everything he's directed was shot on film, including his Breaking Bad episodes (that entire show was shot on film). Also, Looper was shot in the anamorphic format of the OT/TPM and all of Abrams' movies (including Ep7), so Johnson will certainly push to have Ep8 shot that way as well. The only question is whether there will still be film to shoot on and well-maintained cameras to shoot it with by the time this goes into production.
Anyway, I've been excitedly following this news for the last several hours. I must've just happened to load up /Film mere moments after the story broke, 'cause all it said was "Rian Johnson is writing/directing 8 and 9, we'll have more later."
Yeah, definitely got the biggest reaction out of me since the day this whole Disney ball got rolling.
They quickly updated with a full article saying he was only writing a treatment for Ep9, not directing. This was good news to me as I want a different director on each film, like the OT.
I always knew Abrams wasn't gonna come back for VIII. Directing a Star Wars movie seems to be more of a bucket list thing for him. Apparently he's gonna stay on as a producer for the other films. Hopefully it won't be to their detriment.
Rian Johnson was definitely on many people's lists of dream directors for Ep7, so it seems fitting to see this happening.
Oh, and I love that second tweet regarding the SE. Spoken like a true celluloid-lover.
TMBTM said:
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
Will there be Special Editions of PvGL?
I can do a version with my whole interview put back in it. Cause we all agree that 20 seconds of TMBTM is not enough! (and don't you dare saying "that's what she said!")
Which interview is you?
There's still plenty of stuff to talk about that didn't come up in the first one, stuff that's now taken on new relevance. The biggest "what might have been" is the original plan, circa 1980, to just keep going with the series and make episodes 7, 8, 9 and so on. Instead, GL decided to just condense all that into a nice, safe ending for the trilogy where Han Solo lives and Leia is Luke's sister. What we could've gotten is a nice series of six films with the same cast, each from a different director, and then an Episode I in the mid-to-late 90's (again, different director). The original 1977 movie should've remained the only Lucas-directed Star Wars movie.
I think a lot of what people don't like about the prequels goes all the way back to the problems with RotJ. My biggest problem with the PT is its execution, namely that it was directed and scripted by Lucas. But the overall story of the PT was always GL's to tell, just as it had been with the OT. In that sense, I don't see much point in rebooting the prequels.