logo Sign In

zombie84

User Group
Members
Join date
21-Nov-2005
Last activity
12-Jan-2024
Posts
3,557

Post History

Post
#229128
Topic
first viewing of the 2006 OOT dvds
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/229128/action/topic#229128
Time
I think the true purpose of this release came out at Comic Con. As Sansweet explains, the initial intent was to sell the SE individually. Then, they asked if they could add the OOT as a double-package, likely explaining all the revenue lost from bootlegs--which Lucas agrees to, provided absolutely no money is spent doing it. So they dig up the Laserdisk masters from a dusty drawer at the Lucasfilm archives and bingo--the hottest selling point of the year! "OOT on DVD!"

Thats all there is to it. They are getting rid of the excess 2004 SE stock, just like they were in 2005 when they re-sold the box set at a reduced price. Since that set sold so poorly they are marketing the new re-sale with the OOT.
Post
#229063
Topic
Do you think they'll fix the sound issues?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/229063/action/topic#229063
Time
I severely doubt it.

In the DVD trailer Vader's lightsaber is still pink.

The colour fuck ups are still there. No reason to believe the sound will be fixed. I suppose they could still fix it between now and release but i think the disks are pretty much done and ready to be finalised. They are doing this mostly to get rid of surplus 2004/5 disk stock anyway.
Post
#228931
Topic
If George did release a high quality OOT DVD, what is the worst that would happen?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/228931/action/topic#228931
Time
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
For me, the worst that could happen is that it would only be included as part of some $300 boxset that I don't need or want.


No doubt this is what will one day happen.

Casual fans would not pay $100 or $200 just for the OOT--but they would pay $30 for a half-assed laserdisk transfer! The die hards get roped into buying this as well, thinking it may be the last time the films are avaialble, all the while having their appetite for a proper release even more whetted. Once the casual fans have had as much money pumped out of them as can be, and the die hards as well, it is time to really stick it to the die hards by releasing that $199 mega box with exclusive copies of a restored OOT, the rest of the box being 15 disks of PT and SE copies and supplements, with a giant Jar Jar head for a box.
Post
#228918
Topic
The "original crawl" on the new DVD is NOT the original crawl! Screenshot inside!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/228918/action/topic#228918
Time
Originally posted by: Z6PO
Maybe the crawl in the trailer is edited, with an invisible fade between the logo and the text, just to be faster? I mean, they only have like a few seconds to show us the O-OT! (and they better not show us any longer, cause it doesn't look that good...)


They do a speed ramp to get through the five seconds of Logo-recession. But the last part is actually normal speed. No dissolve.

Also note the difference in stars. The EOD ones only have the brightest available. The 1993 and home video versions had the image artificially brightened and as such the stars are highly visible. The dvd trailer footage has the same star background as the ANH 1993 crawl. This, plus the colour difference (the crawl was more of an orange-yellow than a gold, as can be seen from the EOD clip) plus the differences in logo recession show that this is indeed a falsified original crawl.

So technically it is false advertising to claim this is the unaltered 1977 theatrical version. Because its not.
Post
#228878
Topic
The "original crawl" on the new DVD is NOT the original crawl! Screenshot inside!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/228878/action/topic#228878
Time
Originally posted by: Skyranger
I have "Empire of Dreams" on the screen in front of me still framed on the original crawl. "Star Wars" dissappears just as the line "Rebel spaceships, striking" scrolls onto the screen. This is the second line of text, and the the "Star Wars" logo fades completely out just as this line is about 3/4 visible at the bottom of the screen.

It appears from your screenshot that the trailer may simply be less cropped than the "Empire of Dreams" version, which would actually be a good thing. This would explain why the "Rebel spaceships, striking" line is fully visible while the "Star Wars" logo has not yet faded out.

I have not yet seen the trailer, so I'm going strictly on the screenshot here, versus my "Empire of Dreams" DVD.


In the EOD footage the logo is fading by the time the first line is done. Just as the second line comes up it is nearly invisible. It is totally gone about halfway through the second line.

In the trailer the logo is as strong and bold as it first appears and hasn't even started fading at all yet.

The color differences are also a dead giveaway that the dvd crawl is not the EOD source.

Post
#228866
Topic
The "original crawl" on the new DVD is NOT the original crawl! Screenshot inside!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/228866/action/topic#228866
Time
Okay just saw the trailer for the OOT DVD. They showed a clip of the new DVD "original crawl". I was looking to see if it was truely the original crawl, if it was formatted correctly. Mysetriously, the clip on the trailer cuts off just as it is about the get to the first line formatted, which is the third line in. Uh oh. What are they hiding?

Then I took a closer look at the screenshot. "The Star Wars logo looks funny--shouldn't it have receeded by now??"

Sure enough, i took a look at the Empire of Dreams original crawl footage--it is not the same.

THE UPCOMING OOT DVD CRAWL IS JUST A PHOTOSHOPED VERSION OF THE EPISODE IV CRAWL.

Here are screenshots.

From the trailer:

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i139/zombie__84/crappydvdcrawl.jpg

the ACTUAL original crawl:

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i139/zombie__84/1969b977.jpg

Take a look at the Star Wars logo. In the original crawl, everything moved at a different speed, and the Star Wars logo completely dissapeared before the text came. When Episode IV was added they had to bunch the logo and text together to make it all fit, as well as reformatting the text.

The Empire of Dreams footage is already transfered to video in the Lucasfilm archives. Why the hell would they do this???
yet another stab in the heart...
Post
#228853
Topic
first viewing of the 2006 OOT dvds
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/228853/action/topic#228853
Time
Sansweets comments also illuminate one interesting thing--the DVNR is being carried over. Possibly the only advantage this release possible could have had just went out the window.

So lets sum this all up:

-1993 Laserdisk master
-DVNR issues (as per Sansweet)
-Interlacing errors (as per report from Comic Con)
-non-anamorphic
-overly bright 1993 home video colour correction (as per Sansweet)

So what started as potentially maybe ten percent better than the Laserdisk, suddenly got knocked way the fuck down to actually potentially looking worse than the Laserdisk seeing as there are new DVD interlacing errors as well as the horrible DVNR.

Thanks.
Post
#228353
Topic
first viewing of the 2006 OOT dvds
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/228353/action/topic#228353
Time
Someone saw it and actually commented on the technical aspects. And its not good. All those soft shots and interlacing errors from the Empire of Dreams footage is there but without the anamorphic enhancement. The report:

"I was at the Sansweet Star Wars presentation is SDCC yesterday afternoon and saw the DVD footage. When I got home this evening I was surprised that there hadn’t been posts from others in attendance, as the statements regarding the DVD release and the image quality of the footage shown was outrageous, to put it lightly.

Sansweet began his presentation by rolling the opening credits to Star Wars with the reinstated pre-ANH crawl. White ringing, that resembled edge enhancement, could clearly be seen on the inside edges of the yellow text during the crawl, though overall the image was very clean. The footage was shown on four front projectors throughout the room.

After this footage is where Sansweet addressed the complaints about the lack of anamorphic enhancement. Alarm bells started ringing for me when he assured the audience that “the black bars are still there, but are very, very small and hardly noticeable… not even an issue” or something along those lines. It seemed as though Sansweet did not grasp the fundamentals of 16:9 encoding on DVD, contorting the complaint into meaning that a group of internet users were upset that the movies were not being presented in a 16:9 framed image, instead of the correct concern that the discs are not anamorphically enhanced versions of the films that retain their correct 2:35:1 composition.

The next statement that Sansweet made was about the versions presented as being from “the highest quality laserdisc masters made, digitally restored frame by frame,” and that, “these movies look fantastic”. Which of course is true, fine and dandy if not for the fact that video technology has made leaps and bounds beyond the intended purpose of that “restoration”. Those technicalities were obviously not explored.

The jokey bits about the NASA-esque footage and windowboxed teeny-tiny footage was intermixed with the hard sell.

Then, the real deal was shown. The cantina scene with Han shooting Greedo first was shown and received a huge round of cheers when Han, did, as they are pushing so hard and handing out buttons to state, shoot first. But, oh boy, was there something wrong with what was on screen. Please set aside the issue of the loss of image resolution that the 4:3 letterboxed discs, as what was seen on screen was far more concerning:

Deinterlacing artifacts were visible throughout the clip, showing as horizontal combing in every bit of motion and in every shot transition. Speaking with my friends that I attended with, they all saw it clear as day as well. Not good. I’m rather lousy at understanding IVTC, but what I saw on screen was not acceptable.

I was rather startled at the dismissive attitude from Steve Sansweet towards the informed concerns highlighted from forum users and industry professionals, and the calculated assurances that he made about the supposed quality of the sources used for this project. His final comments on the issue were basically along the lines of “George considers these versions dead to him, so you should be grateful you’re getting them at all.”

I was very disappointed in his stance and seeming ignorance towards the real issues with the DVD release, and to wave away legitimate quality issues as the ravings of an over-demanding fan base was frankly startling. I’m a huge Star Wars fan and am interested in the preservation of the original versions of these movies for posterity, and yesterday’s presentation left me with the impression that such a goal is not in any way shared by Lucasfilm. Unfortunate.

I’ve attempted to recount the experience as accurately as possible, but it’s been a long trip and I’m sure I’ve missed details. If there are any omissions or inaccuracies, hopefully some other members can share, correct, and confirm what they saw as well. "


link

Sansweet is officially the Lucasfilm ass-kisser of the year. The man obviously has no clue what the fuck he is saying and is just towing the company line:
"Buy more! Buy more and be happy"
--THX 1138
Post
#227795
Topic
Help: looking for... ROTJ SE 1997 Rough Version ?????
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/227795/action/topic#227795
Time
There are no rough cuts of the OT (or any star wars film) available. The ROTJ SE ending was just an animatic produced for the SE ending change; the only noticable difference is some incomplete effects and animatics and the temp music track. You can see similar animatic footage for various SE sequences, ie dewbacks, but because they are not nearly as extensive as the ROTJ ending they are not all that interesting.
Post
#227498
Topic
Editing movies ruled illegal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/227498/action/topic#227498
Time
That is different Wmgan. Movies are often censored for television and in foreign countries by the studios in order to conform to the respective codes and regulations. For instance in the UK you cannot show a headbutt or nunchucks in a kids movie, which is why the AOTC Jango Fett headbutt is censored there.

The article posted is with regards to private companies selling/renting/profiting from unauthorized edits of films. This is the same as me selling or renting, for example, The Shroud of the Darkside, ep II edit. So really the response to all of this is "duh." I had thought this had already been ruled--i remember in 1998 a video company offered copies of Titanic with the nude scene cut out and they were shut down.
Post
#226354
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/226354/action/topic#226354
Time
The reason i give a rather modest time estimation is that i have heard the argument "film is dead!" so many times over the years that i know it simply wont go away. I have an article from Variety from 1980 which proclaimed "film is dead!" in light of the recent video developments being made, such as the high quality Beta format. In fact in the 70's this argument was made as well. Then in the late 1990's as HD cameras were first being introduced the old argument was brought out: "film is dead!" Well no--here we are many years later and not only is film not dead it is stronger than it ever has been. Kodak's sales of 35mm motion picture stock are higher than they ever have been in the companys 100+ years of existance, and more productions are out there shooting on film than ever before. There is also the fact that many people simply wont want to switch to HD, simply because they can do the same thing with film, only better--i don't expect Roger Deakins to ever contemplate shooting something on video, no matter how good the developments get.

And this is a large part of the issue: sure, HD will one day be able to emulate film with 95% faithfullness--but film is film, with 100% faithfullness; as technology develops and HD prices go down, so too does film-to-digital prices--a 2K DI is now affordable and common for indie films, whereas in 1999 it was extraordinarily expensive. So if a low-budget production can shoot on film, theres no reason why a big-budget studio production cant. There are so many institutions and companies well-ingrained in the film world that cater to the actual film market that even if HD comes out with a 6K perfect-looking camera these companies and inviduals are not going to go away over night; political and economic factors play a big role.

And yeah, the digital still growth is quite impressive--but a lot of professional photographers still don't use digital cameras unless it is for sports and news type of shooting, where the speed, cheapness and ease-of-use is a welcome tradeoff to the lost quality; for professional photographers of any other kind, ie fashion, the majority of them use 35mm film, and for the really high-quality shoots they have to use medium-format film because not only can digital get nowhere near the resolution, film simply looks better. When will we see digital equivalent to medium-format cameras that offer the same image characteristics? Probably ten years, plus another five or so for professionals to make the transition. When you consider that digital still has been around since the late nineties, this makes a thirty year development period, which is about the same as i estimate for motion pictures.
In motion pictures the process that you talk about in the consumer digital still world has already happened as well. Look at the camcorders on the market--they are all either miniDV or DVD. I havent seen Hi8 or 8mm or VHS or VHS-C sold for a long time (although if you look hard you can still find them). Low-budget and no-budget filmmakers also shoot on DigiBeta, BetaCAM, DVCAM, MiniDV or any other form of DV SD videotape because the ease-of-use, speed and inexpensiveness is an acceptable tradeoff for the level of work they need it for. HD is in this category as well--in fact, HD cameras were designed with documentary use in mind, which is why the Sony F900 resembles the long, news-style shoulder-mount cameras. The Arri D-20 that i believe hasn't even come out yet is really the first HD camera designed with dramatic motion pictures in mind.
Really, the so-called HD revolution hasn't begun yet because all the efforts thusfar have been the equivalent of low-budget filmmakers picking up camcorders and news cameras and making movies with them.
Post
#226309
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/226309/action/topic#226309
Time
Originally posted by: Karyudo

Where? I see camera to digital tape (no loss); digital tape to computer (no loss); computer editing (no loss); digital projection. That's how I saw Ep II, for example. The only generational losses you have indicated are film based. Without introducing crappy old film back into the equation (like Lucas wants to avoid, for example), it's lossless until it's projected.


The act of digitizing it is lossy and the act of transmitting it back to data for digital projection is lossy as well--obviously though the loss is very minimal. However, digital projectors currently cannot even faithfully render the image properly so this is moot. One day however, HD will be lossless in this manner--but not yet. I am not arguing that HD will never be good, ever--obvious digital video is the future, and one day it will rival and more-or-less replace film. But not for a while.

I actually prefer HD transfered to film rather than projected directly--it hides the inherant ugliness of the HD image by softening it and introducing some grain.

And all of this ignores the fact that 35mm film is still higher quality even with the loss introduced through duplication. The loss from negative to release print, while notable, still yields an image much higher quality than anything HD can give us, even if you were projecting the original HD footage straight from the original tape. The only instance where the two are about equal is in the case of the early 2K DI's from years ago.

But this is all besides the point. Because even though HD is not up there as far as resolution goes, the detail level still holds up fairly well--but this is not the issue. The issue is the inherant flaws of digital video that have not yet been fixed. The sharpness, the unnatural clarity, the colour space issues, the small lattitude. These IMO are more important than resolution, which is currently at a level that is acceptable for most people (including myself--but of course it would be preferrable to have more). This is why most still prefer 16mm over HD--the resolution is almost the same (16mm actually has a bit more) but the inherant beauty of 16mm makes it more preferrable.

I would say it will be at least five to ten years before the playing field actually gets levelled--once we start seeing 2K HD cameras that have acceptable image characteristics then the film versus HD argument will begin to evaporate but even then film will still be technically superior and still preferred and used by most productions who spend millions of dollars to make the film look good and who are used to working with film. My estimation is twenty to thirty years before film actually begins to go away, and even then there will still be those who prefer it.

Post
#226279
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/226279/action/topic#226279
Time
Originally posted by: Karyudo
Originally posted by: zombie84
Presumably, one of the reasons Lucas shot digital was to reduce the generational losses inherent in working with film. If you're comparing fine-grain camera negative, I agree that there's no scientific basis for arguing against the fact that film has more resolution than HD. (HD at 1080p, anyway). But by the time the results are up on the screen? Well, then, I think it's far less of a slam dunk for good ol' film.


Of course there is generational loss--there is generational loss in HD as well. But because film starts off with such a high-resolution that even by the time it gets down to the release print it still holds a tremendous amount of detail, many times more than HD, which also gets degraded as its put into a computer and printed back out to film.


I think that's crap. I think there are two points there that you're pulling out of your ass, and that you have not proven:

1. "There is generational loss in HD" -- I'd like to see proof (or at least a rationale) for this. HD is digital, and the workflow is typically of significant precision that I don't see how there's a generational loss anywhere.


This is a misunderstanding of HD. HD is currently recorded onto tape. In the case of Star Wars II and III it was shot on HDCAM tape, so after the tape is done it duplicated and then the original is put into an HDCAM deck and captured to the computer. Then after the edit is done, it is printed back onto film, an IP which the release prints are then duplicated from. And this is starting from 1K resolution. So tehre is your generational loss. I don't know why you would think I am pulling this out of my ass. (now there is actually storage technology coming out for HDD recording but this is still very cumbersome and only practical for studio shooting)

Film goes through a process of being scanned into a computer if a DI is being made--at 2K or nowadays 4K resolution--and then printed back onto film for the IP which release prints are made. So even in the highly-degraded DI method of release it is still many times higher. A one day we will have 6K DI's, meaning near-lossless scanning.
A lot of times a film is merely optically printed--the negative is duplicated in a printer for color timing and the resulting IP is used for release prints. This is much higher than current DI technology and actually preserves a truer film look--for instances of why early DI technology sucked see X-Men 2.
Post
#226209
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/226209/action/topic#226209
Time
Presumably, one of the reasons Lucas shot digital was to reduce the generational losses inherent in working with film. If you're comparing fine-grain camera negative, I agree that there's no scientific basis for arguing against the fact that film has more resolution than HD. (HD at 1080p, anyway). But by the time the results are up on the screen? Well, then, I think it's far less of a slam dunk for good ol' film.

Of course there is generational loss--there is generational loss in HD as well. But because film starts off with such a high-resolution that even by the time it gets down to the release print it still holds a tremendous amount of detail, many times more than HD, which also gets degraded as its put into a computer and printed back out to film.


Originally posted by: boris
The fact is I'm not saying you can't get 6000 lines or more from 35MM - but the level of detail in 35MM is about the level Lucas achieved with his digital filming. I don't see my views as "extreme" - like I said, look at the DVD transfer for Last House on the Left - now it wasn't made from the original camera negatives - but they did use the highest quality sources for the movie available - and the film was shot in 16MM - it's not meant to have a lot in common with SW, except to say that the film was in relatively bad condition. There's no grain removal either, and in my opinion the level of detail in the film is fully bought out by the DVD resolution, which means that the level of detail in the theatrical print reels they used is less then the level of detail expressed by DVD resolution. That's how it was shown theatrically - and the sources they used were the best quality ones they could find.

I already addressed this--shoe-string budget using 1970 technology versus ultra-high-budget 2005 technology. My previous post debunks this and actually comes from first hand experience and not home video viewing. I noticed you ignored it.

Now as far as I know, they mastered the LHOTL DVD from 35MM prints - which are "blown up" from the 16MM negatives, and those 35MM prints will hold the quality and detail in there better then a 16MM print will, if that makes sense. You know, like if you get a photo developed onto A4 it'll hold more detail and quality then if you get it developed onto you standard sized photo, because there's more information in there. With SW you don't get that - it was transferred from 35MM anamorphic negatives to 35MM prints - so the prints are at the same level of detail and quality as the source (or less detailed if anything).

If LHOTL was indeed blown up to 35mm for the DVD this actually degrades the original image. It introduces grain and softens the image, and then the scanning of the print introduces more errors. If they had gone back to the original 16mm originals the film would look much better, but again, this is a shoe-string budget fourty year old film.

I've said I think 35MM and HD is roughly equal in terms of detail and quality. Now I think most 16MM films would have a bit more detail in there then LHOTL has, but it would still only be about standard definition in quality.

If the DVD of Last House of the Left is your only reference for 16mm resolution then how can you make these kinds of statements? 16mm, by scientific fact, is higher resolution than HD, and when photographed properly can rival 35mm in apparent sharpness. I say "apparent" sharpness because even though 16mm film shot with an SR3 with a Cook S4 prime lens and 50D stock will actually look similar to or equal to 35mm to the eye, in actuality it is not, and the resolution is the same as LOTL, which is about just over HD.

An example of a modern 16mm film i guess would be The Devils Rejects--i am positive that everyone who viewed this in theaters simply assumed it was a 35mm film. A film like Crash for instance, which had a kind of "dirtyness" to the image appears nearly equal to the eye to Devils Rejects in terms of image resolution.

To zombie84: Super35 is not always cropped, and can use "all the negative" without becoming anamorphic - this yields to being able to film for longer.


Well yeah, thats what Super-35 is--it exposes the whole frame but then there is an optical step where it is cropped and blown up. When comparing it to anamorphic widescreen this then indicates a 2:35 AR, so there is indeed extensive cropping and blow-up.

And anamorphic filming presents its own problems that are created by stretching the image vertically onto the film, such as depth of field - which will always be expressed better using a non-anamorphic lens.


The qualitys created by an anamorphic lens are considered desirable, and as for the apparent increase in depth of field, this is also considered a very beautiful quality and is one of the strongest assets of the anamorphic format--DP's are usually fighting for less depth of field, not more.

"Let me tell you something though--HD, and AOTC and ROTS obviously, do indeed appear sharper and more detailed than 35mm because HD gives that impression."

Then why are you saying 16MM is better? If it "gives that impression" that's all it's supposed to do.


You just totally missed the point. 16mm is still better. HD lacks the inherant softeness that film--any size film--has, because the edges are harsh, the image is very clear, and the exposure lattitude creates more contrast. Thus the image becomes crisp and sharp-looking and fools the eye into looking higher-quality than it actually is. Think of edge enhancement on a DVD--an untreated image and a sharpened image have the same resolution, but the edge enhancement creates the impression of a higher quality image. If you were to examine a resolution test chart you would see that 16mm and HD are about equal (again, resolution is also dictated by the lens and stock choice but as far as inherant limits of the format, 16mm has the advantage over HD in theory).

And there isn't ugly "too sharp" shots in Superman Returns.


There is. Superman Returns is the best-looking HD film i have ever seen, but it is still there--oh man is it still there. The fact that you cant tell the difference only demonstrates your lack of expertise in the area. But to casual viewers, they don't notice because they are not educated in film and don't have a discernable eye for the subtlties of the format--I doubt people even noticed the difference in a film as horribly photographed as AOTC.

Boris, i know your arguments seem logical to you, but they really are not. I work in cinematography, I'm professionally trained to know this kind of stuff and actually have experience working with 16mm and 35mm film as well as HD. You obviously are not any kind of professional in the field, and while you do seem to know a little about imaging systems its that little bit of knowledge that has led you to HUGE misunderstandings. No one who actually has experience in shooting would make the claims you are making. I'm not trying to belittle you or anything but you literally don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

And no, I'm not some "anti-HD" film drone. HD has its advantages in areas--but not in image quality. No one ever shoots in HD because it would yield a better image. HD can be less expensive and allow a better post flow but there is absolutely no advantage visually and it is flawed with tons of problems that will take at least a decade to work out.

As for buying a film scanner or telecine--yup, it would be more than just the price of the machine. Because aside from that you need all sorts of controllers and high-tech accessories that add up to more than the price of the machine itself.
Post
#226139
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/226139/action/topic#226139
Time
Originally posted by: Vigo
Originally posted by: vbangle
WOW........$70,000 to be the hero of the Star Wars OUT Universe......seems worth it to me....


But it seems it can only scan in standard PAL/NTSC resulution. What we would need would be a 2K scanner like the Spirit Datacine.


Was just about to say this. You can find a telecine machine for less than that price as well--and EBay is a deathtrap for camera scams, let me tell you. The Arriscan and Kodak Genesis are really the top of the line film scanners.

I've noticed one selling here:
link
and here:
link

Seems like a really LOW price!
Post
#226116
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/226116/action/topic#226116
Time
Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: zombie84
Why do you think a movie shot on 35mm looks much better on your television than an episode of Days of Our Lives?

...

In terms of Star Wars I don't know why you seem to think it would be different than another 35mm film like T2--because its older maybe? Star Wars is likely more detailed since it was shot in anamorphic widescreen while T2 was shot spherical Super-35. 1. Days of our lives wasn't shot in DIGITAL.

Digital SD and analog SD use the same resolution, but it boils down to what the lens and image sensor can render--digital is not a all inherantly better because it is digital. My $200 Sony Handicam is a digital camera but compared to a $50,000 analog camera such as the Sony BVW-590...well, theres a reason they are priced like that.

2. It's debatable as to whether an anamorphic film image (which holds more resolution vertically then it does horizontally) really does yield a better result then non-anamorphic filming. T2 was shot in Super-35, which uses more horizontal resolution because the picture goes all the way to edge of the film - something that doesn't happen with other formats.

The argument has a bit of merit but at the end of the day anamorphic exposes the entire negative frame, while Super35 goes through an optical blowup and gets cropped. The difference between the two is not night and day but anamorphic does indeed yeild a better image simply because it uses 100% of the picture area while Super35 will use about 85% of the same area and then be optically enlarged.

The T2 film would today be 15 years old. The SW film next year will be 30 years old. I'm not aware of the T2 film being in such bad condition that parts of the original negatives on the master reel had to be replaced, like with Star Wars.


So are we talking about film specs here or Star Wars? The current state of the original negatives has no bearing on their original quality, or even their current quality. Star Wars, at the time it was shot, was equal or higher quality than T2, at the time that film was shot. And as far as the current state of their negatives i would say that any difference between them, if any exists, would be so slight that it would be inperceptable to the human eye, and besides that has no relevance to what we are talking about.

16MM is about DVD resolution, not 35MM. If you don't believe me, by an old movie shot on 16MM on DVD, and buy it on HD when released and compare the difference. Try Last House on the Left, for example - it's from the right time period, and has had similar problems to SW with the state of it's negatives. The DVD resolution brings out all the detail in the film. Converting 16MM to HD resolution is just like blowing it up to 35MM.


You may be misunderstanding something here--a thirty year-old ultra-low-budget film cannot be compared to a big-budget state-of-the-art HD production today because the nature of the beasts are different. Want a better experiment than that? Grab an Arri SR3, a can of Kodak 7246 250D stock and shot a few feet of film, then grab a Sony F-950 and an HDCAM tape a shoot a few feet of tape. When you do that you will see the actual quality inherant in each format.
Last House on the Left was shot in the early 70's on a shoe-string budget--the lighting is poor (and almost non-existant) thus affecting the exposure and image quality (hello mr.grain!) and 16mm stocks at the time was very, very poor compared to today, plus the actual source print used for telecine has been degraded and scatched, and likely it is some kind of duplicate print so there is also generational loss. So if you aquired a 16mm print of Star Wars, yes, it would probably yield image resolution somewhere bewteen SD and HD--but that is simply because the print is so damaged.
Earlier this year i shot some footage on an SR3 with a great set of Arri lenses and using super-fine-grain 50D stock--the result was eye-popping! The image so clear and detailed that I almost thought it was 35mm. This is wringing every bit of detail out of the format--and DVD resolution it is not. And no, i was not screening it on a television--this was the original negative projected in a screening room. 16mm, when shot properly like this and with quality equipment, surpasses HD resolution easily.

Jim Cameron seemed to think that the digital filming is achieving a level of detail equal to 65MM film.


Jim Cameron is not a cameraman. Ask the DP of his film what he thinks--he won't be saying HD=65mm, i guarantee you that.

If you want to prove that film is better then HD then I suggest when SW is re-re-re-re-re-re-released on home video in HD that you show me captures of the highest detail with no special effects in them from each movie, and compare them to the captures of the highest detail in Ep2 and 3. Cause I reckon you'll find the detail in Ep2 and 3 is more.


I don't need to do that because HD versus 16mm/35mm/65mm is not dependant on Star Wars! Obviously this is showing that casual home video viewing is your only frame of reference and source of OPINION on the matter.

Let me tell you something though--HD, and AOTC and ROTS obviously, do indeed appear sharper and more detailed than 35mm because HD gives that impression. But that is something that HD engineers and HD cinematographers are fighting. It is too crisp, too clear; film has a natural softness to the edges, while HD is sharp and ugly; film has a natural focus range, while HD keeps everything sharp and crisp; film has a natural lattitude of exposure, while HD crushes and blows out easily, making everything contrasty. The combination of these things, and others i havent mentioned, create the "HD look"--crisp, sharp and contrasty. The "HD look" is undersirable, and HD cinematographers have to fight it by using longer lenses to get more depth of field, diffusion lens filters to soften the edges, and softer lights to avoid harsh shadows, as well as regulating exposure levels much closer together.
But the HD look provides a clarity that 35mm doesn't have--but 65mm, because it is so detailed, shows a kind of clarity and detail-level that appears similar to HD. Just so theres no misunderstanding here, depsite its apparent clarity, HD is still inferior to even 16mm in image quality. But this ugly clarity issue, i believe, is the reason why some think it compares to 65mm--for instance Superman Returns was going to be shot on 65mm, but then at the last second it was decided to go with HD (I'm guessing this was decided mostly for economics). The ultra-clear image characteristics of HD footage are kinda similar to the fine-detail provided by a huge format like 65mm.