Great, I'm happy you like the subs. I thinks it's the slight shake that helps the authenticity, because when you've got subs burned in film, they always have a bit of a shake.
Again, that is all surely true, but you keep talking about the o-neg but the question is what I as a consumer see in the cinema. If the film is shot at 4K digital and projected at 4K digital, I'll basically see projected in cinema the equivalent of what the o-neg is for film, it will be the best possible quality for the film (of course there are other factors to the digital projection than just resolution,so not entirely but close). When I watch a 35mm print, I watch the film in 4 generations worse quality and the situation is very similar as watching 1080p downscale of a 4K digital film. The best situation here would probably be to have the film shot on 35mm and then scan the o-neg at 4K or even 8K and project that digitally at 4K.
Thanks :-)
OK, I tried a new version of the subs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKnGJHJtJvk
It's just one test shot. I think it works really well - I made the sub in photoshop and then added it to the footage in AE. I added a little blur, grain and shake to the subs to make them appear more authentic. Tell me what you think.
And btw I don't think that VHS and DVD have the same resolution, I don't remember the exact numbers but VHS is about half the resolution of DVD (and LD is somewhere in between, closer to DVD).
Actually, what he was clearly saying was that you don't ever see 4K resolution in theatres, because 35mm print is 4 generations from the negative and the resolution of the prints is no more than 1080p. So 1080p (in terms of resolution) is the same or better than what you see in theatres from 35mm. And I just saw the Inception too and it was projected from film and I'd say the level of detail was about as high as 720p, so I must agree with that. But it was great, film has that special, warmer feeling to it, which digital just lacks. (And the film itself was awesome too, one of the best I've seen in the last few years actually.)
Yeah, but what I can see (and belive me, I can, because I do prefer to sit in the front 6 rows and have a very good eyesight) is the projection grid (well mainly just in white areas.) Hell, I even see the grid on my laptop's 15" monitor now. If the projection was 4K, I would see the extra detail and I would not see the annoying grid in the whites...
Well, sure, that is true, I just saw a 35mm print in a cinema and the clarity and amount of detail wasn't higher than a 720p video. But that is the whole point! Higher quality is achievable through 4K digital scanning of the negative and 4K digital projection, which will eventually become cinema standard. And with the current state of preservation, STAR WARS won't be able to live up to that standard.
Oh, that would be an awful waste... of coasters :-D
I don't know, do we really have to make another list of his wrong-doings for you to understand it?
Sorry, man, you keep trying to convince us that this might be a quality release but we were made sceptical by previous experience and though I know there is a slight possibility that it may be a quality release, I just don't believe/hope that it will...
Yeah, old, sure, like I said a 1080p transfer made with an HD release in mind, which the 2004 SW wasn't.
Thanks guys, I'm glad we're not losing humour quite yet, although the whole OOT situation isn't funny any more :-)
I completely agree, I said 1080p is fine, that is not to say it can't be better :-) A movie scanned and handled at 4K and then downscaled to 1080p will probably look a bit better than scanned directly at 1080p. But when scanned at 1080p with a hi-def release in mind, it can be really good - like old versions of Blade-Runner: I watched the original version of BR, which was scanned from a good IP at 1080p on my grandpa's 50" and checked it against the Final Cut, which was scaned from o-neg at 4K and the difference was very minor. I actually liked the slightly grainier look of the original a bit better than the Final Cut (although that may be because I generally prefer the original version).
Thanks :-)
zombie84 said:
No one would be able to tell the difference anyway, since we would be watching it in 1920x1080 at home anyway.
Yeah, sure, I meant as a preservation for future cinematic releases. Although even for normal sized cinema 1080p is a fine resolution. I remember, when they first showed AotC here in the Czech Republic, one of the biggest cinemas in Prague showed it digitally (it was the 1st digital projection here ever) and the projector had a resolution of 1280x1024 anamorphic and everybody thought it looked stunning.
Yes it does, using Chrome.
Depending on how much they actually saved, there might be a chance of TPM being scanned at 4K or even 8K. That is if they kept all the FX data and all the o-neg elements before the FX were added, they could scan those at 4K or 8K and re-render the FX. This would of course be really expensive and complicated and I wouldn't expect Lucas to show this much respect even to a prequel.
The same could be done with the SEs, (even the 2004) again, provided they kept the digital FX files and it would be much easier because it is much less footage. And it would of course require scanning all the OOT first, which would be great - all the 3 films would be preserved in OOT and SE at 4K.
Yeah, I meant the 97 SE with the 2K think, I didn't even take the 04 SE into cosideration when speaking about scanning the film.
I would actually expect the prequels to be shot 1920x1080 anamorphic but who knows...
Oh, beaten to it again, well, the more, the better, I guess.
I sent the reporter who captioned that picture the following message:
http://news.cnet.com/2300-11386_3-10004866-2.html?tag=mncol In the caption of this picture you speak about ILM having won an Oscar for STAR WARS, yet there is none of the Oscar winning effects in that picture, because it is from the Special Edition of the film, where the whole Oscar winning original matte painting was replaced by a digital one. For a more in-depth view of this matter, please visit www.savestarwars.com. Thank you for the attention you will surely give fixing this understandable mistake.
And yeah, the SE footage was also scanned digitally (although I'm pretty sure it was 2K, not 1080p) so none of the films in their current state could be scanned at 4K.
The only SW movies which it would be possible to give a proper 4K preservation are the original unaltered trilogy films. Ironic :-)
Also:
1) 35mm is not the best resolution (70mm and 65mm are).
2) 1080p remaster can be perfectly good if done right (the 2004 one wasn't).
3) There is absolutely no way they could make a real 4K transfer of Ep II & III, because those were both shot digitally with 1080p resolution, so there will never be any natively higher resolution of those two films and of episode I neither, because while shot on 35mm, most of the film has got some CG in and for that they scanned the film at 2K, so all the CG shots in ep I have a maximum of 2K resolution...
EDIT: Akwat Kbrana beat me to it...
And it probably will.
Someone should let them know in such a way as to make them angry...