George Lucas Talks Fantasy Cinema in TCM's Latest 'A Night at the Movies' Documentary
Categories: Network TV Press Releases
http://www.cnet.com/news/whats-star-wars-about-in-a-word-george-lucas-explains/
Windexed said:
I'm excited. However, and this may sound silly, I feel kind of weird about the fact that Lucas isn't involved. While I believe any creative talent he may have had disappeared a long time ago, someone else taking over everything seems kind of...inauthentic. Kind of like if your Mom remarried while your asshole dad is doing life in prison. The new guy might be nice, but he's not your Dad
Absolutely.
Lucas conceived , wrote, produced and directed it(and even when he was not directing.......he was still calling the ultimate shots)
For good or for worse...through the good times and the bad ,Lucas was the common denominator.......the man who put it together.....and who pulled it apart......but he was always there.....he is the undisputed pap of the series.
As for Abrams.......he is nothing more than a Spielberg/Lucas wannabe.
And a poor one at that.
Ever since taking control of Star Wars in a $4.05bn (£2.5bn) deal in October 2012, Disney has been careful to avoid criticising its creator, George Lucas, for almost bringing the space opera saga to its knees. Not so Oscar Isaac, star of JJ Abrams’ forthcoming Star Wars: Episode VII, who has said the digital tinkerings introduced on the 1997 “special editions” of 1977’s Star Wars, 1980’s The Empire Strikes Back and 1983’s Return of the Jedi made the classic original trilogy “less interesting”.
Speaking to <span style=“color: #0066cc;”>the Huffington Post</span>, Isaac echoed the views of fans and critics who have wondered why Star Wars required the addition of a squealing CGI Jabba, or whether the revised version of Return of the Jedi might have reasonably dispensed with irritating new digital members of the Max Rebo Band for scenes at the Hutt gangster’s palace. The actor defended Lucas’s right “as an artist” to make the alterations, but said the original movies were “awesome”.
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/sep/29/star-wars-oscar-isaac-tinkering-less-interesting-films
Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back back to back in April 1981(in 35 or 70mm----was too young to know the difference!)
Below is the poster for the 1982 back to back showing:
Star Wars(35mm) ,Empire Strikes Back(35mm) and Return Of The Jedi(70mm) in movie trilogy evening in August 1983.
SilverWook said:
AntcuFaalb said:
http://www.reddit.com/r/StarWars/comments/2dqm18/disney_to_release_original_unaltered_cut_of_star/
This Reddit thread is so fucking depressing. Why, you ask?
1. The number of people convinced that the OUT was completely destroyed.
2. The number of people who want some Frankenstein'sMonster-esque mishmash of OUT and SE.
3. "Weren't the originals released on DVD in 2006?"... 'nuff said.
4. The (surprising) number of people who think selling an LD->BD rip would be acceptable.
5. The presence of the token "People still buy physical media???!" guy.
And, to a lesser extent...
6. The obsession over the ownership of the distribution rights.
I don't expect everyone to be like us, but I just don't understand these people.
I'm going to bed. -_-
1. The smoke and mirrors we got from Lucasfilm the past 17 years has done it's job far too well.
2. George, is that you, and your socks?
3. 2006? Where the heck are they getting that from?
4. They have probably never even watched a Laserdisc on modern display, if they even know what an LD is. ;)
5. The people I know who stream pretty much everything complain bitterly about the fees they pay for going over their limit for the month. ;)
6. Some latent fear a loophole exists that will go around George's wishes?
Sleep well, and don't worry about clueless people on the internet.
Coppola says the Godfather negative was destroyed.........but in reality it was not.......it was just in very poor shape.
Lucasfilm is using the same terminology.
Mr. Lucas said that to release the original versions of these films on Blu-ray was “kind of an oxymoron because the quality of the original is not very good.”
“You have to go through and do a whole restoration on it, and you have to do that digitally,” he added. “It’s a very, very expensive process to do it. So when we did the transfer to digital, we only transferred really the upgraded version.”
Unfortunately, the recent releases get priority over what we call the classic versions of things.”
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/star-wars-films-coming-to-blu-ray-next-year/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
ObiWanKennerobi said:
If film looks more like 6k, then why not just scan it at 6k? Then they can avoid resolutiongate 2.
The 6K slogan comes from Kodak and really only applies to the very finest modern 35mm film stocks.
Older 35mm film stocks(such as the ones Star Wars was shot on) wont go anywhere near 6K(they probably barely make 3-4K----and that is just the live action).
True........ VistaVision elements /frames(which probably could be in the 6K range) that were used for the optical composites......but once those were duped to create the final composites you would have far less than 4K(and most likely barely 1K).
That is why Lucas recomposited most of those shots digitally.
He knew that the originals would not stand up to the closer scrutiny of a 2000's modern presentation(in terms of resolution).
I have seen 4K versions(all be it upscaled) of Close Encounters, Superman The Movie ,Star Trek The Motion Picture and Alien*(the other Big "Optical Composite" 4 special effects heavy movies of the late 70's).
All of them exhibit generation loss the minute an effect and/or titles appear on screen.
It is a distraction(if you are looking for it)......and John Lowry was correct to identify it as a discrepancy that affects the storytelling process.
Star Wars 2011(upscaled to 4K) looks fantastic.....and is superior to all of the above movies in terms of resolution linearity....be it live action or special effect.
I will try to upload some screen shots of star wars(upscaled to 4K)
*I have a Sony 1000es 4k projector(2160 x4096)
Never saw this before :
http://www.iridasmagazine.com/spotlight/200509/artwork/star/index.html
It is from an article from 2005 that described in some detail the process that Lowry used in it's pipeline.
It allows you to slide over the image and see the difference.
here is the article in total.
This is interesting:
http://services.creativecow.net/s/6299/jazmyn-marie-media-services
It is the resume of a post-production staffer.
says she worked for RelianceMedia
Also confirms Star Wars Trilogy was done at 4K
"Restoration, Mapping, Dirt Picking : Star Wars 4K Blu-Ray Release"
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.
Mod Edit: Unfortunately, the RMWUSA site is no more - though it can still be viewed here, via the Internet Archive’s WayBack Machine:-
http://web.archive.org/web/20140716150418/http://www.rmwusa.com/#work and then click on the ‘Restoration’ link.
(^ some patience is required for the page to fully load ^)
A screenshot image from the above page (featuring some of the restoration work they had performed):-
A screenshot image of when the Star Wars image was clicked on:-
(stating ‘Star Wars Trilogy : Lucasfilm, 4K 16-bit restoration’)
A two-minute ‘RMW Image Processing Demo Reel’ video by RWM, featuring Star Wars (amongst other movies RMW worked on), can be found here - at the Reliance Media Works’ vimeo page:-
Tyrphanax said:
danny_boy said:
Whether you like or dislike these adjustements/enhancements is a matter of opinion.
Indeed, but to say that his version is definitively, objectively better than would be an official high-definition restoration of the OUT is patently ridiculous. Even Adywan himself agrees.
The fact that Haseo would be just fine with redubbing all the dialogue to bring it up to date really takes the cake, though, and shows Lucas-esque levels of revisionism. I mean, if we had the OUT already, then sure, replace all the actors with Jar-Jar for the next Special Edition for all I care, but not until then.
Agreed 100%.
Lord Haseo said:
Harmy said:
Well, again, you take one bit of a good post and ignore the rest - he compared Ady's work to modernising a classic work of art like Mona Lisa to today's standards of beauty, which I think is a perfect analogy - it could be a fun little experiment but it sure as hell shouldn't be considered the new definitive version of Mona Lisa.
I didn't respond because I agree with him for the most part. And plus this argument is rendered null and void because we all know the OUT will come to blu-ray eventually. Still doesn't detract from the fact that SW:R is better. Your argument is simply for historical and sentimental value. Let me put this in a more real world context. In 30-50 years cybernetics will advance to the point in which we can enhance our bodies and perhaps later on our actual brains. Many scientists believe that if there is other life in the cosmos that is advanced it could very well be a species of machines; The next step in evolution. Should we limit ourselves in achieving more just because this is the original body we were born with even though cybernetics can enhance our physical boundaries? I would fucking hope not.
The parameters by we which we judge Ady's work with Lucas are completely different.
As an example SW:R uses components of FX shots from other parts of the same film(and the subsequent films too)
Now the original film did this too(The Falcon approaching the death star and then later yavin being the best example).
In the context of a fan edit we can laud Ady for his ingenuity and imagination to re-use a component of a frame and insert it and combine it with other source elements.
Now if Lucas did the same thing and did it well......we would complain that he was still re-using stock footage(done during the original trench fly through several times).....he is a rich filmaker with the best FX company on the planet at his disposal......right?.....re-using stock footage or elements of stock footage is unacceptable.
And if Lucas re-uses stock footage and does it badly then we would complain anyway!
If Ady re-uses stock footage ......well we just we praise him for his imagination.....he is just a fan with humble tools at his disposal....right?
If he does it badly(which to be fair...he hasn't) then we may complain....but hey...it's just a fan edit.
You can't compare a fan edit with a theatrical presentation.
It is not so much that they are different beasts......it is the way we judge them.
rchdggr said:
A work of art is inherently tied to it's context and time.
Revisions yank it away from it's context and the revision is not the work of art.
I actually like your forward-looking stance. But SW:R is not Star Wars. It will never be. It's collaboration of the filmmakers and Adywan.
I really don't see how going forward and preserving artwork are mutually excluding. We can and we should do both. We do not need to cast away the feeling that our heritage should be preserved to move forward. On the contrary, the leaps we have made in preserving things, even things we thought were lost forever are HELPING US MOVE FORWARD.
Realizing that Star Wars has dated effects has improved fx work in general. Sure, there has been some terrible CGI but BY LOOKING BACK filmmakers are starting to take note that practical effects PLUS CGI can produce amazing stuff, somthing that neither method could produce on their own.
Had we cast aside emotions and feelings we have for good old practical effects and focusing solely on CGI, I for one wouldn't be all too excited by the upcoming ST. Since I know that the makers have realized that CGI alone doesn't really fly, I think we may see something truly amazing soon.
I don't think anything could evolve without the past which is the base. Even if you use yesterday as the base you build upon, you are still looking back. Not much but back nevertheless.
Adywan never collaborated with anyone involved in the production of Star Wars.
Collaboration is a reciprocal process.
Ady took the work of Lucas and co and made some adjustments.
Whether you like or dislike these adjustements/enhancements is a matter of opinion.
generalfrevious said:
I wonder... Has the relative unavailability of the OOT made its stature bigger than it otherwise would have been?
You bet.
Lucas has been playing you all along.
Fang Zei said:
But for a scope movie like Star Wars, it really should be the full 2048 that's being used. 2K for scope is 2048:853, 2K for 1.85:1 is 1998:1080 and for 16:9 it's, of course, 1920:1080.
Yes---although commercial 2K cinema projectors can scale/stretch up the image in the vertical direction(thereby utilizing the full 1080 x 2048 panel)
And with the help of an anamorphic lens---optically expand the image horizontally.
For those who own projectors which have this same scalability function---It can also be done at home (but consumer anamorphic lens cost somewhere in the region of $5000-$10000).
P.S
I have a Sony 4K 1000es projector and have watched Eps IV,V and VI at a resolution of 1706 X 4096.
The below screenshot is from projectorreviews.com:
They scale up perfectly and look nothing short of amazing.
Same applies to the prequels with Revenge Of Sith being the standout.
This screenshot below is from an AVS forum member :
Fang Zei said:
Most movies finished as a DI are only done so at 2K anyway. The theater gets it as a 2K file on a hard drive and the 4K projector upscales it.
I was unaware that the C4 saga screening was done using a commercial cinema projector. IV-VI were only cleaned up at 1920:1080 HD resolution (although the source scan was 1828:1556 which is considered a 2K harvest of the "squeezed" anamorphic image on the negative of true cinemascope movies like the OT and TPM). The Lowry guys were very specific about that at the press conference in 2004 (with Hamill, Kershner, Jim Ward et al) when someone asked if it was 2K. They also specified full RGB resolution, which makes sense since they were doing this on 600 networked powermacs. I can only assume they meant 1920:817 for the actual 2.35:1 image itself. Either way, 1920 is still slightly below the 2048 of true 2K.
This info about the C4 screening, coupled with the fact that GL did go ahead and make additional changes to the Lowry master for the blu-ray, makes me wonder if he really did intend it as the basis for any and all future releases of the movies. Now that it's Disney's property, I would assume they'd want it transfered in a quality greater than just hdtv/blu-ray.
The real differences between BluRay and a Digital Cinema Package are compression and colour gamut
And as you corrrectly said earlier----- the Resolution difference is a mere 6% (2048 vs 1920).
But with the right equipment----Blu ray can perform on the big screens:
Tyneside Cinema hosted a unique HD outdoor screening of the 1980s film "Dirty Dancing" starring Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey. Fans came early to get the best positions and to enjoy the pre-film entertainments, and by the evening Newcastle City Centre was packed full of people enjoying the event, with many singing and dancing along with the film.
Special permission was granted to play the new 20th Anniversary Blu Ray release so QED chose to use Sony S600 3rd Generation Blu Ray machines and two twinned Christie HD18K 17,500 ANSI lumen HD projectors to deliver outstanding quality and brightness onto the giant 50ft wide inflatable air screen.
Fang Zei said:
Has the OT ever been exhibited theatrically as a dcp???? The Lowry master, aside from being used for its initial purpose in the 2004 dvd release, has only ever been used for hd broadcasts and the blu-rays. They've never used it to make a dcp for theatrical exhibition, not to my knowledge anyway.
and Gen Con
Lucasfilm Ltd. and Christie continue their long and productive relationship,
http://www.ehomeitalia.com/digitalcinema_microsite/prodotti/digital_cinema_brochures/digital_cinema_1_series.pdf
Christie CP2000 Digital Cinema ProjectorPart Number: 38-DCP301-XX
Digital Micromirror Device™
http://www.christiedigital.co.uk/emea/product-support/discontinued-products/Pages/christie-CP2000-digital-projector.aspx
@msycamore
I dont dispute your passion or your knowledge for SW in it's original version.
I want to see that original version released on BluRay in a package similar to what they did with Blade Runner.
That is my personal ideal scenario.
But like Kubrik who wanted us to watch 2001 without the original extra 19 minutes that were included in the premiere screenings------Lucas wants us to watch SW with all the digital stuff and story revisions.
Kubrik gets away with it because hardly anyone remembers what those sacred 19 minutes were(although it is documented on wikipedia/IMBD) but Lucas does not because everyone has seen his film way too many times(me included).
Anchorhead said:
danny_boy said:
...because you have watched them far too many times on whatever home video format you have had the priviledge of owning.
You will NEVER EVER be able to enjoy these films as much those original cinema screenings ...
......you will never be satisfied due to viewing oversaturation spanning 3 decades.
So you channel your anger at Lucas' s unwillingness to release the OUT or the changes he has made
You don't get to speak for other fans. I strongly suspect that the fan base is angry over the revised history, the altered films, the lies, and the suppression. I doubt number of times seen factors into it.
Considering the number of members of this board who own, watch, and somewhat support the SEs and prequels, I think their anger is placed correctly.
Got to disagree.
Fans are only aware of the revisons/changes because they have seen the films so many times.
That is my point.
Hypothetically speaking:
If you saw Star Wars just once in 1977 ------- and you did not see it again until 1997 would you honestly remember every detail of the story or every frame composition.
No.
Obviously each individual will remember different aspects of the film depending on a whole host of factors.
Personally speaking I cannot remember the exact details of the Han /Greedo confrontation when I saw SW in 81' back to back with ESB(aged 6).(It is just not one of the scenes/images that is embedded in my memory)
I ofcourse I did familiarize myself with that scene by watching SW repeatedly on home video (from the age of 9 through to 12).---so when I saw the revised sequence in 1997(aged 23) it felt jarring and wrong----- even though I had not seen the film since 1987/1988(aged 13/14) at that point.
But:
I would not have remembered the intracacies of that scene from just that 1981 theatrical screening alone despite the fact that is the presentation that is most dear to me personally.
2001 Space Odyssey had 19 minutes of footage cut by Stanley Kubrik himself after it premiered but before it went into it's proper nationwide theatrical run.
That original version(as it premiered) has never been seen on home video(or any theatrical screening since).
That was Kubrik's intent(ithis lost footage only recently resurfaced in 2010!----but will not be re-incorporated back into the main film).
And there is hardly any public outcry regarding the supression of that "original" version because 2001(despite it's own huge cultural prestige) has had nowhere near the same level of overexposure as Star Wars.
Lucas is no different to Kubrik---they both altered their works of art after the fact(in different ways and chronologies ofcourse).
But Lucas has to battle with the fact that there are people out there who think they know his film better than he does himself.
LexX said:
I like how every post from danny has to include the remark of him owning some 4K equipment, like we should be in awe or something.
No I don't expect anyone to be in awe of 4K.
I want them to understand that it is not some magic number that will resolve all the flaws that maybe inherent in an anlogue production like the original Star Wars.
4K will merely highlight the limitation of the resolution of the optical dupes that constituted large parts of the original camera negative. that made up Star Wars back in 1977.
4K works best with footage that has been shot "in camera".
2001 Space Odyssey and Alien fit into this bracket.
Close Encounters,Superman I and Star Trek The Motion Picture(and Star Wars) on the hand featured so many optical composites that 4K scans(and subsequent projection) would accentuate the disprecancies that exist between 1st generation negative (that features no optical compositing) and dupe negative(for all the VFX).
This makes for a very uneven presentation.
The lower resolution of 35mm projection(relative to 2K or 4K) and the obviously even much lower resolution of VHS and laserdisc obscured these same discrepancies.
I would not have a problem showing my kids(if I had them) an original VHS tape of the OUT even here and now in 2014.
An entire generation grew up watching them on VHS(or Beta,V2000 ,laserdisc or TV broadcasts) without it hindering their love of the story,characters or it's special effects.
Check out this review from the net.movies usergroups in jan 85' shortly after ESB was released( the person owns a Betamax---at the time considered to be slightly better than VHS)
19/01/1985
My own findings with the rental films have been
as follows (and I realize that there are bound to be
variances from copy to copy):
(1) Empire Strikes Back - I rented this primarily for my
4-year-old, but thoroughly enjoyed it. In terms of
picture quality and exploitation of the HiFi sound-
track this has been the best pre-recorded videotape
I've encountered. I know that many sf-lovers found
this a disappointing stopping point between the
more spectacular "Star Wars" and "Return of the Jedi"
but I found the characters more touching and absorbing
than I had expected.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/net.movies/euqD0hWQabc
Now even back then we all knew that the optimum way to experience these films was in a theater.
Personally speaking, my love for these films was created in a theater(watching SW and ESB back to back in 81')........but that love was solidified by watching them on my V2000(early competitor to VHS) throughout the early 80's.
Many others never had the opportunity to watch them in a cinema but still fell in love with them through home video.
And here in lies the rub.
These films(and I am refering explicitly to the OUT) were not meant to be watched over and over again.
Lucas even says so in the commentary track for the 2004 DVD
"You were meant to see it once and be blown away"
Now ofcourse, many did go back to the cinema to watch these flicks again and again during their original theatrical runs but you can't pause a 35mm print during a screening......you cant rewind or fast forward or watch it in slow motion.Those benefits are only the virtue of home video.
I am assuming you also saw them in the cinema at the time of the original releases but be honest Msycamore, do you honestly remember every precise detail of the story(or how good the picture quality was frame by frame) from those theatrical screenings.
Of course you don't(no one does).
You only know these films back to front(like me) because you have watched them far too many times on whatever home video format you have had the priviledge of owning.
You will NEVER EVER be able to enjoy these films as much those original cinema screenings simply because you have been over exposed to them.
It does not matter if the OUT is released on Blu Ray or 4K............you will never be satisfied due to viewing oversaturation spanning 3 decades.
So you channel your anger at Lucas' s unwillingness to release the OUT or the changes he has made(both cosmetic and story wise)to the "special edition".
You very immaturely call a video technician who worked on the 2004 DVDs ,Vidiot(of the SteveHoffman forum) an Idiot for straying too far from the original colour pallete despite THE FACT you have absolutely no clue as to what the original colour pallete is.
Sure....you own a few transperencies(35mm or 70mm) and you have seen a few screen shots of the senator theater showing in 2010 ...... but that does not give you the authority(or anyone-else on this forum) of having a say in exactly how these film looked originally.....when the FACT of the matter is that the quality of resolution and colour reproduction of any theatrical viewing of SW in the late 70's or early 80's would have varied from cinema to cinema and from print to print(be it 35mm or 70mm) .
It is one of the main reasons why 35mm is being phased out in favour of digital (2K or 4K both of which have been scientifically proven to be better than 35mm projection).
Now having said all that I still want to see a release of the OUT on Blu Ray as much as anyone-else here.
In the meantime the 2011 BluRay(upscaled to 4K in my case) or the original VHS will suffice.
I dont complain that I cant see the original theatrical edits of classics such as Das Boot or Amadeus on blu Ray.
I suggest that you do the same for Star Wars.
And if you cant enjoy it(any version on any format) then dont watch it.
You have clearly watched it too many times already.
msycamore said:
danny_boy said:
Simple solution.
Watch it lo-fi(VHS,Beta,V2000, laserdisc)!
It forces you to focus on the characters and the storytelling and nothing-else.
Effects and sets are obscured by the relatively low quality picture that you have no choice but to follow the story.
Maybe Star Wars fans have been too obsessed with Pixels and picture quality in the last 17 years(at least since the advent of DVD-1997) that it forbids them from just enjoying the film itself.
I know that the counter aurgument is that the picture quality is so bad(for NTSC VHS in particular) that it is too much of a distraction to enjoy the flick.
Or is that because we are so used to being spoiled in the high -definition era?
I am fortunate enough to own a 4K Sony 1000 projector.
I can watch the likes of Oblivion,Elisium,Looper,Pacific Rim,Man Of Steel and Star Trek Into Darkness on this projector upscaled to 4K, enjoying every last ounce of pixel information/detail that these flicks have to offer.
They may look fantastic but IMHO all the above are just average movies---great style....but little substance---I re-iterate---in my opinion!
So yeah.....I get more of a kick watching my beat up ol' 1982 1st release(library rental) VHS video tape of Star Wars than watching any of the above movies in 4K.
I understand your view and I agree to some extent but I don't think Star Wars fans have been obsessed with picture quality in the last 17 years, more like being denied it. The story is what's most important yes, but film is very much a visual medium and a form of visual storytelling, especially in the case of a film like Star Wars. Your signature proudly says;
I saw Star Wars in 1977. Many, many, many times. For 3 years it was just Star Wars...period. I saw it in good theaters, cheap theaters and drive-ins with those clunky metal speakers you hang on your window. The screen and sound quality never subtracted from the excitement. I can watch the original cut right now, over 30 years later, on some beat up VHS tape and enjoy it. It's the story that makes this movie. Nothing? else.
^ If that's all that makes that movie work then why bother when you can just as well pick up the script or the novel of the film and read it instead? I can personally enjoy Star Wars in crude form, we have basically been forced to enjoy it that way since it left the theater but picture and audio quality is definitely important. And it really goes without saying that it's fucking ridiculous that not a decent modern video release exist of these iconic classics either in Special Edition or in Original form. Stop trying to justify the silly George Lucas syndrome.
I am not trying to justify anything.
I want to see that hi-def OUT release as much as anyone.
But until that happens(if it ever does) I am more than content to watch it on VHS!(I can understand if a lot of people are not happy with this proposition)
I would strongly disagree that there is "not a decent release of the special edition" version in high def.
The Blu Rays(especially upscaled to 4K) are spectacular. Incredible levels of detail-------No----- they may not be accurate with regards to colour timing and other aesthetic issues when compared to how the films originally looked but even that cannot be confirmed until you physically run a non faded 35mm print side by side with the Blu Ray or the 2K/4K DCP (not just rely on film cells posted on jedi net or screenshots from the IB tech screening at the senator theater in 2010).
We also did that at ILM for the transfers of Star Wars and Jedi that I worked on, where they had prints up in the Stag Theater across the hall to use for comparison. At any moment, we could stop and say, "whoa, is that supposed to be green?" and then check the print.
SilverWook said:
danny_boy said:
Lol---just imagine the likes of Elisium,Pacific Rim and Transformers being released on VHS.
So many of these movies are marketed on just how good looking they are(both for Cinema and Home video).
Take away the good looks courtesy of High Defintion 2K/4K digital Cinema or 2K Blu Ray and there is not much left.
I can watch Citizen Kane or Das Boot or All Quiet On The Western Front or Star Wars on VHS or a Sony 4K projector..
It makes no difference what the format is.
They are great films.
Stranger things have happened. ;)
Wow---great find-----think i will have to bag myself a copy!
My 4k projector also has component(RGB) sockets.
It means I could hook my VHS to the projector.
Star Wars VHS in 4K...hell yeah!
*just kidding*
