So the bottom line is that it is far more likely that the cropping is due to projection than the print itself? I'm woried about this in terms of a possible use of this print as a source for an HD transfer of the original. It would suck if it was cropped this much.
I PMed Zombie about this, hopefully he'll be able to shed some light on it.
Hm, interesting, it could be a matter of the projection not the print. I hope it is, because there seems to be quite a lot cut of on both sides and a little bit at the top as well.
You've gotta be shitting me!!!
I'm really sorry and I feel ashamed for making you wait so long but I've been really busy with uni and stuff so no, I didn't finish the restoration and there's only very little left to do actually (basically only the subtitles) but I just couldn't find the time, and frankly the will, to do it. The work on the subs is simply boring as hell :-( I'm hoping to get it done after exams in January.
Maybe this is a silly question, but what about data tape storage? I know, that nowadays it is possible to store up to 1.5TB of uncompressed data on a single tape but I'm not sure about the state of this technology in the late 90s. I know they were using what looked like a standard VHS tape for dailies when filming AotC and that was shot in 1080p, so not so different from 2K in terms of the amount of data. Lucas even wanted to shoot TPM digitally but Sony didn't manage to "perfect" the technology in time so he had to "settle" for normal film.
Well, yeah, I guess it makes sense. I just finished reading your article "From Interpositives to Separation Masters:How Film Preservation Works", Zombie and it is awesome. I really enjoyed reading it even though only about 10% of it was new information to me. And the end of the article explains exactly this issue. It was probably kind of unthinkable to store tens of terabytes of data in 1999.
And they didn't keep the files they printed it out from? That's stupid!!! But then, we're talking about post 1997 Lucasfilm here, so stupid is possible :-(
So would that mean they've scanned the film for Blu-Ray from a 3rd generation copy? Because like 90% of the film has a digital effect in it, so basically the completed shots first existed inside of a computer in 2K and then were printed onto film to create the "o-neg" (the actual camera o-neg has a lot of green screens in it so it can't of course be used for anything).
PM sent
Are you sure it's a change and not just a typical 2004 colour issue? Because this is what I got by just fiddling with brightness and contrast:
Why do they even need to make a new transfer of TPM? Shouldn't there be a complete 2K DI ready for them to just encode from? And that should most definitely have the right colours (i.e. the colours seen in cinemas) as it was used for making theatrical prints.
Wow, that would be the coolest cake ever!!!
Well, DVD rip to 3D BluRay stil sounds pretty horrific :-D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knjnt-6RROs
At around 4:00
The most that could be used from the Ewok film IMO may be some shots of the Ewoks fighting...
I thought about that, it might be possible but still, I'm not sure whether it could fit in the story and also as far as I remember (I'd only seen it once as a kid), the monster was pretty lame and the effects work was pretty bad too.
I doubt that it would be in any quality that would be possible to insert into HD (or even anamorphic DVD) footage.
Yeah, actually from looking at it, I'd say the colours were f*cked on the DVD and are corrected on BD. Just look at the skin tones on the DVD, they all look like they just came out of a really hot bath...
That is awesome!!!
dark_jedi said:
... is there any movie that was done right for you guys?
Yeah, there was, take Blade Runner for example.
And James Cameron adding CG to Aliens is very very sad news, lucky for us, unlike STAR WARS there is an HD version of the original Aliens so it is indeed an easy fix...
It probably doesn't really belong in this thread but I wanted to show this to mr.Frink and didn't wanna start a new thread because of it :-)
It's from the 1st episode of the new season of the Simpsons.
adywan said:
I used a hi res screenshot of the chamber background and upscaled the emperor from a 97 SE SD TV broadscast then rotoscoped the original emperor, adding it to the HD background.
Finally an answer to the question I asked like two years ago in the AVCHD thread, thank you :-)
Well, I'm guessing he's gonna look like he does in the trailer.
Lord Grievous said:
No they're not, the Bespin escape clip for instance is a 720p TS stream with no black bars and it plays perfectly on my widescreen monitor. I've noticed that some of the Facebook clips are stretched, but I think that's because of some other reason. If you play a 720p or 1080p clip with no black bars on a widescreen monitor it will create the bars itself.
Yes, but not in AVCHD or Blu-Ray format, these formats have a resolution standart of 1280x720 (16x9) for 720p and any other aspect ratio has to have black bars to fill the picture to the same resolution. An AVCHD with a resolution of eg. 1280x544 just won't work.
But if the bars are already part of the image it will still create them and thus you have two sets of black bars surrounding your image, which makes the image look even smaller.
And this is absolutely false; because the black bars that are already in the picture conform the picture to a 16x9 AR, the player will not add any bars because it will be playing a 16x9 video. The only issue is the black bars taking up data space but it isn't much because they stay the same all the time so they're easy to compress.