- Post
- #1668767
- Topic
- ⭐ Star Wars' <strong>50th anniversary</strong> in 2027 ⭐ | Your hopes and expectations <em>(if any)</em>...
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1668767/action/topic#1668767
- Time
Detail: ALI…
Detail: UHD…
Well, it’s important to note that this shot was digitized in 2K in 1997 to add the rope holding Han, so the UHD not only includes that shot with a clearly lower resolution, but also suffers from excessive DNR for the 3D conversion, which caused the image to lose detail.
Yeah, the point of the comparison is that this isn’t sourced from the UHD. Or you’re right, it would also have quality loss. Also good to note that the 97 filmouts also had fake digital grain added on top to disguise the new CG! So yeah, doubly worse…
I don’t know why you say “digital fake grain was added.” This shot was scanned, digitized, had CGI added, and was reprinted. If there’s supposedly more grain, it’s because of the reprinting. Although, back then, films had very fine grain, so no detail was lost when reprinting a film a second time. In the case of the enhanced shots in Star Wars, they look “worse” because they were rendered in 2K.
No, they had fake grain added onto them aswell… even in '97.
https://youtu.be/RMzif1D0nyAWell, I think it refers more to the completely computer-generated shots, like the CGI shots of the Battle of Yavin, the CGI arrival on Bespin, among others, but the existing shots that were altered already had grain, and when reprinting, the natural grain of the new film did its thing.
I’m sorry, why are we making assumptions here? In the full video he says this was done to both new and “changed” shots. There are many original shots that appear to have had more grain in them in the SE evidenced by the need of more aggressive DNR…




















