logo Sign In

RM4747

User Group
New Members
Join date
1-Dec-2025
Last activity
1-Dec-2025
Posts
2

Post History

Post
#1669585
Topic
⭐ Star Wars' <strong>50th anniversary</strong> in 2027 ⭐ | Your hopes and expectations <em>(if any)</em>...
Time

JadedSkywalker said:

Isn’t that what they did for Star Trek TMP they scanned the VistaVision and 65mm neg at Higher than 4K resolution?

I’d love to see that for Star Wars without the DNR added at the end though. SW is standard 4 perf and 8 perf? No 65mm negative despite it being considered before the film was made. They selected VistaVision.

It doesn’t look like Star Trek was shot on 70mm at all, but they also used VistaVision for VFX yes.

The reason was because it was higher resolution and had finer grain, so when doing optical compositing and making a copy of a copy of a copy, the added grain wasn’t as bad.

Maybe if the budget was larger, Lucas would’ve shot everything on 70mm, but that was pretty uncommon between the 1960s and more recently when Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan revived it.

Post
#1669568
Topic
⭐ Star Wars' <strong>50th anniversary</strong> in 2027 ⭐ | Your hopes and expectations <em>(if any)</em>...
Time

That guy with no name said:

Secondly, the color is unbelievably accurate. Dr Dre himself has proclaimed them the best he’d ever seen and is even basing his next 4K77 color grade on them.

If we assume this is getting a theatrical and home media release in 2027, wouldn’t that make 4K77/80/83 pretty much irrelevant? I’m surprised they’d continue to work on them.

I mean, I guess some people prefer the extra grainy and faded look of a 40 year old theatrical print, but these 6K scans of the original negative look SO much better, even just from compressed YouTube clips.

Lucasfilm is going to have access to the most accurate color references, since they have all of the original film elements, including the IB Technicolor print that hasn’t faded at all (which I’m sure they scanned before allowing the BFI to screen it), and the original color separation masters of the negative, which also haven’t faded at all.

lurker77 said:

A “secondary” 8K scan for certain (or just one) shots is peculiar. It’s considered pointless for 35mm. Perhaps they’re counting pixels across the width of a VVLA frame? Or they had to do a recombine from stems or sep masters and the extra res was helpful? (The “3F” could point to this)

Most of the VFX were done in the 8-perf VistaVision format, which is higher resolution than standard 4-perf 35mm.

The notes mentioned that the VistaVision VFX shots are being scanned in 8K, all of the standard 35mm is being scanned in 6K.