emanswfan

JediZombie said:

mfastx said:

I'm not sure why everyone is talking about CGI.  The Prequels were weaker films because of poor plot, dialogue, and directing.  CGI was still kind of new then so some shots looked way too cartoony, but by the time ROTS rolled around I thought the CGI looked great in that.  

It's 2014, I'm sure that any CGI used will look great.  I'm more worried about the storyline at this point. 

 I'm one of those odd people that don't care one way or the other how the effects are done. CGI or models, if it looks good who cares. Eps 1&2 had some problems with the CGI but still looked okay. I agree with you that the CGI in ROTS looked pretty damn good. I have no doubts that visually this Star Wars trilogy will look the best.

I'm not sure I want to say the CGI looks good anymore (at the time maybe), but there are a lot of shots in ROTS, that a next-gen gaming console (ps4, xbox one, wii u) can easily beat.  Even TCW had more detailed digital characters than the digital doubles used in certain shots.

Ronster said:

This film will have more CGI than any other film you have seen previously. weather it looks real or not is another matter but don't get your hopes up on seeing an all practical effects romp it just won't happen.

 I highly doubt more CGI than ROTS.  I really hope they go somewhere between the OT and TPM in terms of how much, but I'm guessing it will be a little more than what TPM used, which was a bearable amount (though not bearable quality back then).

In terms of the realism, I feel that the less CGI you have, the more time and money you have to spend on that CGI to make it more real, without having to sacrifice the quality of the CGI in certain shots.  The Hobbit movies are a good example of this.  There are quite a number of scenes that are completely mindblowing when you discover what they did in terms of the CGI/Digital Compositing.  But with the same time they spent on those scenes, it meant not enough time on other shots resulting in bad cgi, which is prevalent in Hobbit too, especially DOS more so.

Speaking of TH, I have no problem with Andy Serkis as a motion capture character as long as it looks just as good as Hobbit Gollumn.  You can't tell he's CGI, except for the fact that you know he is CGI.  I'll be glad to see that level of mastery in the new SW.

doubleKO said:

emanswfan said:

I find it hard to argue that the first 2D series has more engaging action sequences than the 3D series.

I would argue this up and down. Clone Wars made me feel like there was actually a war going on, unlike the movies or later series.

 I am referencing the actual visuals themselves not the overall organization and execution of the sequences.  I am saying that if Clone Wars was CGI but the same overall, I think the action would be more engaging, as the visuals get a bit too overloaded for the 2D animation.

The idea that an actual war is going on had more to do with the execution and writing of the action scenes.

On the CGI aspect it really is sad how much better even Frozen looks in hand drawn animation.

I think it really just depends on how they use the medium, and if they are using it to its full advantages.

For example, Tangled and Frozen could both easily be hand drawn, and they'd probably be better that way, because story-wise they don't rely too much on the CGI advantages.

On the other hand, Wreck-It-Ralph, the Despicable Me movies, and the How To Train Your Dragon movies use many aspects of CGI that are unique to that type of animation in ways that really involve the characters and drive the plot.  I couldn't imagine them being as good if they were 2D-style.

There might even be stuff that is 2D that would benefit from the 3D more so and would help the story.  For example, as cool as 2D SW Rebels may be, I just think the 3D would work better because you aren't so limited.  Just compare the action between Clone Wars and The Clone Wars. No matter your opinion on the overall shows, I find it hard to argue that the first 2D series has more engaging action sequences than the 3D series.  It simply makes sense.

See, what I think the problem really is the idea that people in the movie business have gotten a tad too attached to the newer 3D CGI technology.

.Mac. said:

That's so awesome, congratulations to the winners!

So, were there at least 5 entries towards the Snow Speeder model? ;)

Unless I am mistaken, he hadn't got all of the five more entires needed for the new clip, it would've been up last night otherwise.

Hopefully this is just another stupid rumor, especially considering the source.

Boba Fett Movie Casts Jango Actor Temuera Morrison

Unless, they weren't flashbacks but results of traveling through a wormhole into an earlier period of time, altering the timeline as we knew it, and..,oh wait Abrams already did that.

That would be horrible if it was unless it resulted in George's version of the PT never existing and that the OUT, and the new trilogy being part of this altered timeline.

Would be redundant for JJ, LOL. Though Jar-Jar would die, so maybe it works out.  ;)

SilverWook said:

At least one British tabloid is saying Carrie's daughter is will play Leia in a flashback scene,  hair-buns and all. Make of this what you will.

 For sure it is a dumb rumor, but if it was true, that would be very un-Star Warsy to have a flashback scene, especially if they are trying to stay close to the style of the OT.

Here's that same shot from the theatrical recreation version.  I personally greatly prefer this version a lot more at the moment.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/81220

Also, I finally resolved all the color banding issues, with chroma upsampling the footage.

Hal 9000 said:

Oh, my bad! I thought that was the 'regular' version. 

 No, it's my fault for probably not clarifying that well enough earlier.  I can post that shot in it's theatrical version as well.

Hal 9000 said:

emanswfan said:

My bad, on the grain.

Here's the same shot with real anamorphic film grain scanned at 4K, I purchased recently.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/80765

 IMHO it's still a lot of grain, and it noticeably hinders detail. I do really like this look overall, but I estimate the grain is stronger than necessary. 

 Those shots are intended for new work on the oldified versions, the theatrical recreation version has less grain, a more modern film look, and is 4K.  The oldified versions are just too unstable for me, to release yet.

Hal 9000 said:

Just curious; why start with ROTS?

 I don't know, it's just I feel that ROTS might be the simplest to work with of the 3 films, though actually TPM might be considered easier.  I guess I never real have had a specific reason why.

I always like that the duel was mellow, because Star Wars was the movie introducing us to this amazing new universe.  It didn't have to be big yet, that could be saved to get bigger for the latter instalments.  The music added a little bit extra kick to it, and IMO just the right amount for a special edition of the movie.

That said, I still feel like revisited shouldn't bother trying to make the order viewable in 1,2,3,4,5,6 as SW (or ANH, I guess) is simply the intro film, and I don't think you can change that, no matter how much you "fix" the prequels.  SW explained the force, the lightsabers, and everything else to provide you with basic understanding.  Now, I do think TPM could very well be changed to be made to introduce concepts to us, but unless more radical edits are applied, I find it too jarring to watch in chronological order, beyond the fact that the prequels are so obviously made after the OT production-wise, unless that's being planned to change also.

Harmy said:

Check out this sample of Schorman's preservation (pretty much the highest quality of the DVD master available), the BD and a quick adjustment of the BD I made - the BD, while it quite obviously much had more detail before the scrubbing of the grain, still has more detail than the DVD master even after the DVNR.

 Nice, thanks for the comparison.

Harmy said:

I wouldn't recommend that - for one, it could be really hard to correctly overlay the two sources and also, this is a DVD master from 2001 with HDTV compression on top of it, that we're talking about - it is pretty atrocious - lot of grain and not much detail - it has some benefits over the BD but over-all the BD is better and has more detail.

 Hmm, okay you;re probably right, as i haven't even gotten to look at the HDTV version recently.

So I'm thinking about using the HDTV rip of TPM as a main picture source as it still retains the grain of the image.  Then I would the HDTV coloring to the Bluray coloring, use "match grain" in AE to apply the correct film grain to the Bluray, and I would align the HDTV correctly over the Bluray and blend the two together so that most of the picture is the HDTV, with the edges being the Bluray, much like what Ady did to restore the uncropped shots in ESB:R using 35mm scans.

It seems like this would be the best way to retain all the desired detail in the image.

I'm very much looking forward to checking out these versions of ATOC and more importantly TPM.  These might be a very good source for me to utilize at least as references in ATOC, and possibly as a picture source in my preservation of TPM to keep the overall image's grainy appearance.

My bad, on the grain.

Here's the same shot with real anamorphic film grain scanned at 4K, I purchased recently.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/80765

Custom Kodak 5247 LUT test:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/80761

Maybe, too much grain in the shadows, but I really like how the skintones are turning out.

Octorox said:

Why does Attack of the Clones look so bad color-wise, is it just oversaturated? I'm attempting something similar to what you're doing for my own edits of the prequels but I'm kind of at a loss when it comes to what to do with the color of these movies. I want to remove the "cartoony" look of Episode II (and III to a lesser extent). I tried a pass that was mostly crushing the blacks and desaturating, and it certainly looked more "real", but it didn't look like the OT, which never had a dingy, dark look but were for the most part, bright and colorful.

 Well ATOC looks the worst of the three prequels, because it was the first to use all digital cameras, so it was very experimental at the time for a blockbuster movie of that calibur.  They really didn't know how to do much of any good color grading (and honestly it's not till more recently digital movies have looked really good, as the technology and skill to make them look impressive has taken a long time to develop, and is still very much developing still now)   Also, the Bluray has a really weird psuedo-teal/orange color grade that ruins the film's look as well.

I have yet to post any screenshots from ATOC, and probably should soon.

Making a film look that is very filmic yet very bright and colorful as the OT, has been a big challenge that I have been struggling with, which is why I still have no clue when an oldified version of the PT will be complete.

DominicCobb said:

Do you have an estimated completion date for this? Looking great, by the way.

 ROTS is complete for the theatrical recreation, and ATOC is about half way done, and TPM doesn't have much progress at the moment, but it may be the easiest of the bunch.  I also do have the deleted scenes to go through still also.

ROTS (and its deleted scenes) you can expect this summer, and ATOC/TPM probably sometime later this year.

I'll probably render a short full 4K clip on to Youtube sometime this week or next week.   (Note: no audio will be on the clip to prevent copyright detection)

Fun little GOTG-style SW trailer:

http://youtu.be/TLyNMSkTiGg

ExNihilo said:

Wow, funny. Maybe I'm deceiving myself but I really find the Kodak one more appealing. Rock on man

 Well since it was the film used to shoot the huge majority of the films from the late 70's throughout the 80's(including the OT), being able to accurately recreate it would be awesome, but I'll have to work it out.

That said, I still have tried to create an accurate Kodak 5247 look.  This is a comparison between an untouched color board and that same color board with my universal Kodak 5247 LUT that I made myself along with 5247 film grain added on.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/79856

It's really as close as I can get, and I still have yet to try it on the prequel footage.  I do know though you have to calibrate the white balance to very warm and flat prior to applying the LUT, so that it looks correct.

ExNihilo said:

 I trust your judgement, your work has been fanstastic and I can't wait to see what the result is. I'm just an OT kinda guy and always hated the orange looking title and crawl in the PT.

 Well remember that this is a shot from my first version that will bring the appearence of the movies closest to what would have been seen on screen.

I referenced information about how they print digital sources to film, what film stocks would have been used, the characteristics (color, dynamic range, grain structure) of those film stocks used, and even referenced at bootleg DVD copies of the theatrical versions I happened to finally have a use for.

In terms of the OT version, I have been thinking about putting that version on hold, as many colorists I've asked on other forums say that the technology required to accurately emmulate film stocks from the 60's through early 90's is still virtually impossible due to the color and texture characteristics varying for each different level exposure or color hue exposed to a single film cell.  BUT color grading tools are evolving towards more complex adjustments, so that may make it possible at some point in the future.