Sign In

The Bull's Eyed Womprat

User Group
Members
Join date
6-Jul-2016
Last activity
18-Jan-2020
Posts
31

Post History

Post
#1320385
Topic
Attack of the Clones 35mm found on eBay
Time

ZigZig said:

AotC was digitally shot in 1,5k… So there is really no need to restore it in 4k.

It was indeed shot at less than 2K, however motion picture film should still be scanned at 4K or more. The reasons being many, but in broad strokes: digital video resolution signifies the size of the ‘container’ that contains the image. During film-out the digital image on any given frame is printed onto a piece of film, and film is a very different ‘container’ than digital. These two types of ‘containers’ are a lot different than any consumer facing publications explain. They often explain that film’s resolution equivalent is somewhere around 4-6K, but that is a bad analogy because the two systems are fundamentally different, i.e. Film’s grain structure, and thus image structure, is continuous, whereas digital is discreet. The image does not retain its discreet nature once it’s on film, it is now rendered by film as continuous. So in order to capture the image as best as possible, a higher resolution is needed. I’m not suggesting that the image ‘gains’ in quality from the film-out process, I’m saying that to transfer a continuous film image to digital, there is ‘loss’ of spacial resolution if you scan at say, 2K. Basically film and digital are not 1:1, in fact they are far from it. In other words, whether an image on film came from a digital file film-out or an optical/photochemical process, you lose quality by scanning at lower resolutions. The size of these losses is debatable, but remember that the pixel resolution of an image is only one part of its image resolution, especially when transferring back and forth between mediums.

Post
#1229857
Topic
The Disney/Fox acquisition....
Time

pittrek said:

What we have been told from different sources

  • Bob Iger said to the reporter that they’re thinking the same way or something like that (I can’t find that interview) when she asked him about a possible OOT release
  • Disney is starting a streaming service and needs content
  • they are scanning absolutely EVERYTHING they have in the Disney archives and the archives of their subsidiaries, including Lucasfilm, and not just released stuff but also things like behind the scenes footage, interviews or deleted scenes

So, IMHO, it’s not an “if” question, but a “when” question.

Thinking the same way as what?

Post
#1066208
Topic
Celebration 2017 Speculation
Time

DominicCobb said:

I honestly don’t think George’s beating heart has jack shit to do with any of it, I doubt anyone cares about “not releasing the originals out of respect to him” and the idea some have floated that it might have been in the deal he signed with Disney is simply ludicrous.

Ultimately, I think the real enemy here is simply just apathy and indifference on the part of whoever makes the distribution decisions (which might overlap with the rights issues).

One thing that’s interesting is there’s no way these new filmmakers haven’t brought the OOT up (I know Rian Johnson is on record for criticizing them). I wonder if they know the lowdown and if they’re privy to versions we aren’t.

Damn, shoulda asked Rian about that when I met him…

Is Rian Johnson criticizing the OOT, or the people? Who is ‘them’? also do you have a link? I’d love to see what he has to say as i really like his movie, and am stoked he is helming TLJ.

Post
#1048248
Topic
Ranking the Star Wars films
Time

I shall rank thusly:

  1. i. Star Wars
    ii. Empire Strikes Back
    iii. Return of the Jedi

(Smallish gap in quality)

  1. i. The Force Awakens
    (Fairly modest gap)
    ii. Rogue One

(Valles Marinerisian gap)

  1. i. Revenge of the Sith
    ii. The Phantom Menace
    (Big gap)
    iii. Attack of the Clones

Here the tiers (I hope my formatting shows up correctly) are more important than the sub-rankings.