poita

Dre, is that from the TIFF or the DPX?

Yeah, so far this print looks softer than the IB, but some scenes are more ‘clear’ due to better composites, like the sabre training scene.

Interesting, I thought they made it then scanned and animated it.

I know little about the SE, thanks for the info. It is mainly the lighting that is way off, I guess it’s more accurate to say the SE additions stand out like a sore thumb.

When scanning, you have so many things to take into consideration, one of them is whether to scan into a log or linear based file.

Attached is the same file as a linear TIFF and a log DPX.

If you are using a log based system such as Nucoda, you will probably get better results with the DPX file, if you are using something less high end, you might get better results with the TIFF.

I’ll be interested to see how people go with this.
https://we.tl/xO0SCcQyuM

If anyone who has contributed would like access to some ProRes files of the scan, please drop me a PM.

Reel 3 should be finished by Friday, but that brings me to the end of funding for the SE, the other three reels may have to wait a while.

I will be setting up some video files and raw files for supporters over the next few days once Reel 3 is done.
Thanks again to everyone for helping make this possible, there are some very cool things in here that I will be sharing soon.

Help Me Zombie-Wan_Kenobi, your our only hope…

Best caption competition for this image is now open…

It’s amazing how much the CGI additions stick out.

An example of the wonky grade…

Why so sad Luke?

Maybe…
I’ve done a basic correction on the cropped shots.

Which image did you mean? I can up you a raw version.

Thank you!

Scanning with the wrong settings, but loving the look.

Those two frames…

Adjusting the focus:

Smug as:

Yes, those two were re-do’s after I noticed the problem.

Dre, those colours in the samples I just posted are my own quick and dirty colour balance, they aren’t what it looks like on the print.
However the colour is good on the prints, you could correct it any way you want, there is plenty of colour information in there. One of the advantages of triple flashing and using a mono sensor instead of a bayer one… lots of colour information to work with.

Reel one is done, it is going slowly as I have to refocus every 60 frames, an issue I’m hoping to solve.

Reel two is being loaded up now.

Yes, the SE print is worse shot to shot than the IB prints.
It is clear that they were on a tight time and money budget with the SE, and spent more time on new shots than on colour timing and fixing issues.
The grade certainly wouldn’t have been accepted for a home video release.

As for polyester vs acetate, projectionists when poly films started appearing complained that the image was not as good, but I generally find the colour is better on poly than acetate.

As for dynamic range, it varies so much from print to print that I honestly couldn’t say one is better than the other. I’ve had poly prints with beautiful shadow detail and muddy acetate prints and vice-versa.
Poly tends to be more ‘clear’ vs the slight yellowing that many acetate films show.
As for this print, there seems to be plenty of detail in the shadows in some shots, and not in others, I think the limiting factor is the masters used, rather than the film stock of the print itself.

There has been no digital cleanup done on the files. This is why we spend a lot of money physically cleaning the prints.

There is still some dirt and debris on there that will require digital cleanup though.

Dre, I watched reel1 and Reel6 projected last night, from a different SE print that I have here, the grade is all over the place, but not very different to the technicolor prints.
The greys of the Death Star and X-Wing interiors are greenish-grey like on the IB, the overall colouring is similar, but man some shots are graded poorly on the SE. Star field backgrounds very green or blue for instance. It is very inconsistent shot to shot.

As to more detail or being closer to the negative, I guess we will see.
Some of the shots I’ve looked at so far have less resolvable detail than the IB prints, I think it will vary shot to shot.

How about you guys start a film resolution thread in the technical section.
Ask an archivist, and you will get the answer that film can definitely out-resolve 4K, because we see it do so. We handle hundreds, if not thousands of films in our careers and spend our lives looking at them at the grain level.

Ask a cameraman, director or DoP or researcher and you will get different answers from each and every one, depending on the few stocks they used, the few tests they may have done and their mindset and motivation/bias (which we all have). They tend to look at film in motion, on a projection screen or moviola, but rarely up close, and even a prolific director, not all that much film, it will be in the tens, bit the hundreds or more. Often the tests don’t say which MFTs used etc. The stocks used, the lighting setups etc etc.

Anyway, I can’t tell you the absolute maximum resolution film can reach, it is as much lens, light and processing dependent as it is on the stock, but in our experience we see it outresolving 4K, not in theory, but in our actual work. I can’t however say exactly how high it might go.

So let’s start a new thread if we want to get into the nitty-gritty, I’m happy to contribute and learn from it, but I’ll try and stay on topic here.

Reel One is 70% scanned, the reel will go back on the machine tonight and hopefully we will have reel one done by the end of tomorrow.