zombie84

Chainsaw Ash: You are probably correct about 70mm preserving more detail because of the larger negative size. But then, there is at least one more extra generation due to the blow up, if I am not mistaken, which is why 70mm was often very grainy. I haven't seen enough 70mm to do a side by side comparison, but your logic makes sense. Which was why I found your statement confusing:

"Basically, I want to see it as close to the way it was shot as possible.  Which is why I don't see films in IMAX unless, like The Dark Knight, at least part of the film was shot on IMAX."

Wouldn't this then lead you to swear off 70mm for distorting the presentation method of Star Wars then? If you are open to 70mm, then you should be open to IMAX, is what I was getting at. 35mm films blown up to IMAX usually hold up, the same way 35mm films blown up to 70mm generally did and were considered premium releases.

"A 1080p/24 transfer of the OUT will look better than what anyone saw in the theatres in 1977,78,79,81,82."

This is probably true, but it does depend on what the source is. For instance, due to the fading, grain and dirt levels of the 1985 IP, I would say 1977 theatrical prints looked much better than that, and the 1985 IP is likely to be the source of a future transfer unless they do a restoration from the negatives. I would almost say the surviving Technicolor prints would be the best source other than going to the negs or separation masters.

Harmy, the Vader shot looks pretty good, definitely the best I have seen attempts to composite the original pieces in there.

I don't know if you are open to suggestions on it but one thing I would do is just re-colour the eyes using the 2004 footage. Its very easy to change brown to blue just using something like After Effects (which, I know, you don't like). That way, you would only have to composite the eyebrow piece. It would look much better, and probably be invisible. If you think this will be too much work then thats fine, the version as is looks pretty good, but even on Youtube I can see the quality difference and some of the seams, because the focal point of the shot is the mans eyes, which are from a different source. That example tends to draw a lot of attention to the OOT-area, unfortunately, so leaving the eye footage as is and just changing the colour would definitely make it less noticeable.

Puggo, maybe this was brought up in the 22 pages of this thread, but I haven't come across it on your website or in the recent pages. But I'm curious what sort of camera you have been using for the  captures. My second question was if it isn't an HD camera, would you ever consider modding the workprinter to install one? Because I really think it could make a difference, especially ESB which looks like it has more detail than the Star Wars reels. The release needn't necessarily be in HD itself.

Is it just me or does Dark_Jedi become more of a dick with each post he makes? Because it sure seems that way.

"Its my party and I'll cry if I want to!"

@ Harmy:

My understanding is that theatrical projection is uncompressed, but the files have to be converted in format, which is a lossy process. So you aren't seeing what it would look like directly from the D.I. Obviously it would have to be downconverted as well if it was from a film scan D.I. or a higher-than-1080 video shoot.

Yeah I don't buy any of that. Digital cinema was the biggest scam in the world back in the early 2000s, peddled by companies looking to sell something ridiculously expensive and with built-in obscelecence, and it was embraced by people so eager to have "the wave of the future." I saw lots of people saying it looked great. They had no clue. Its like Lucas saying how superior his shitty Cinealta camera was. Really, that low-res camera with no depth of field, no dynamic range, hot spots blowing out all over, bad gradient, no black information, dark levels breaking up, cables out the ass, no wireless transmission, bad balance for camera operators, etc. Those cameras were news cameras too, they weren't made or intended to be used for motion pictures.

Don't be fooled, all that hype was exactly that. These days, it's a different picture, it would be unfair to use technology from 1999 to judge the medium today. Today most of the problems are gone or on their way to being gone, so I don't hold anything against people wanting to shoot digitally, but in 1999 come on. I saw digital projection back then and yes, it was clear and there were no splice and the colours were bright--this is the exact sort of stuff that fools everyone into falling in love with high-def. "It's so pretty!" They don't notice the noise, the moire, the aliasing, the tack-like artificial sharpening, the artifacts, the poor resolution, the picture breakup, etc, on the 1999 projection because its bright and shiny.

@ Danny Boy:

Yes, an HD cam to HD projection should be better resolution than a 35mm theatrical print.

In theory.

In practice, it is not. In 2002, for example, digital projection was a joke. It looked awful. It still often looks mediocre today, and in 2002 it was experimental. So, yes, if you could take the HD DI from the computer at Lucasfilm and put that on the screen, it would be better. But that's not what you see. First of all, you have a file conversion that gets compressed, so what is possible to see in a theatre is not the same as what came from the computer. But more importantly, with digital the projector is a key element. With film, the film is the element and the projector is just a light to shine behind it. But with digital the projector is actually creating the image. So, you have a compressed file that is being shown on a projector that loses resolving power and introduces tons of artifacts. If you saw AOTC digitally in 2002, for example, you would have noticed that the stars were square blocks, because thats how the projector or file interpreted them.

So it seems an unfair comparison. People say "oh 35mm resolve 5000 lines but in practice it is only 1080 when you get to a print". Fair enough. But HD can resolve 1080 lines but when you get to a projection its about 700 and it looks like ass. So make the comparisons fair. But as I said, resolution isn't even the full picture here, because in the case of Lucas you have the camera sensor which breaks up in dark areas, can't display gradients, doesn't have any dynamic range, has no depth of field because it is a 2/3" CCD, and has 4:2:2 colour space (plus it limits your shot choices, and takes more time and money to set up). This is why I always thought Lucas was a fucking moron for shooting the prequels digitally. No DP ever shot digitally because they knew all the limitations, technical and aesthetic. All the early adopters were directors, like Lucas, Rodriguez and Bryan Singer, but they weren't trained professionals, all of their DPs tried to talk them out of it and they were right.

The picture is changing nowadays of course. But there are still issues to be worked out.

ChainsawAsh said:

What you see in a theater on opening day, the first (or second, or third) time a print is run, is probably somewhere between 2K-4K quality.

Today, though, any film print will have been made from a 2K or 4K DI anyway, so it doesn't really matter.  If you're only concerned about the most detail, see it digitally with a 4K projector.

I, however, prefer seeing something that was shot on film projected on film, for aesthetic reasons, regardless of whether or not the 4K digital theater across the hall has more detail or not.  If it was shot digitally, it should be seen digitally.

Basically, I want to see it as close to the way it was shot as possible.  Which is why I don't see films in IMAX unless, like The Dark Knight, at least part of the film was shot on IMAX.

But if you want to capture Star Wars the way it was seen in theaters in 1977, it's likely to be somewhere between 2K and 4K quality.  Unless you saw it in 70mm, in which case it was probably above 4K quality.

 You refuse to see films in IMAX but you think Star Wars in 70mm has better quality? Imax and 70mm are the same principle. In both case you are seeing a 35mm blown up to a duplicate format approximately double its original size. And in both cases, I doubt you actually gain any resolution.

As for the argument for digital projection--Cameron is right there. Most prints you see are not in 4K when first run. Resolution does not degrade the more a print is run, either a print will resolve four thousand lines of resolution or it won't, and the fact is that a print will never, ever give you 4K resolution. It is roughly HD resolution, and in many cases between 720 and 1080 resolution. There were studies conducted by a European cinema group [EDIT: I think that is what was linked above] and they did tests across dozens of theatres with different subjects and they found on average viewers could only discern 800 lines of resolution in a print. Now, I take issue with this, as I have seen prints that have more picture information in them than their HD counterparts, so this tells me that prints can outperform HD. However, not all prints are the same--even the reels differ. Some reels are sharp and some are soft within the same film. This is because it varies as they are printed, due to light pollution and registration among other things. I would say that in a best case scenario if you saw a perfect print from a limited-run (which, because they make only a couple hundred prints and not 50,000, tend to be much better quality) it would be in the 2K range. But otherwise, your typical theatrical print could not possibly be in the 4K range, just because it is not possible to retain that much information when it has been (at least) three generations old.

However, as I mentioned previously, digital projection often tends to "look" digital, you can see the video artifacts, so this is why I prefer film most the time. Its not because it is digital per se, if you saw it from the DI itself it would look great, it's the HD downconvert and the projectors used. When I saw Inception last week it looked bad, even though the resolution was about the same as a film print. However, when I saw the Final Cut of Blade Runner in 2007, it was one of the best looking projections I have seen in my entire life, because it was from a premium projector in a single-screen theatre, not those typical multiplex ones. Maybe it was a 4K projector, but I don't know if any commercial films were being shipped to theatres in 4K. Also though, and I will get into this as it relates to film, just because something is being projected in 1920x1080 doesn't mean that's what the resolution is. That is the size of the image, true, but film and video aren't measured the same way because film has no pixel resolution, you have to measure resolving power of both. A lot of HD-downconverts for multiplexes simply do not have a thousand lines of verticle resolution when projected. The picture may technically be that pixel size, but if the movie was precursed with a lens chart you may discover that it only resolves about 800 lines. The digital projection of Inception I saw might have been such a case. That's why it is misleading to just look at resolution and say "this number is bigger", because resolving power is different than resolution and film has no fixed pixel size so that is what you will be comparing--what actually ends up being captured.

On a similar train of thought, you also have to keep in mind that while 35mm films can resolve more than 4K resolution, in a practical sense they often don't. The convention wisdom is that 35mm films resolves about five thousand lines. But film isn't like digital video, where the resolution is fixed--the resolving power of film depends on what you put into it. There are two main factors that contribute to this: 1) lens, and 2) film stock. If you shoot on a 500 ASA stock with a 200mm zoom lens, you aren't going to get more than 2K on the negative. But if you shoot on a 100ASA fine-grain stock with something like a 50mm Cooke S4 prime, you will probably get all five thousand glorious lines of resolving power on that negative.

However, stock and lenses today are not at all the same as the ones from eras past. In fact, in the 1990s, film stock became so sharp that cinematographers started complaining it was beginning to look like video, which is part of what prompted the move to grainy, coarser looks like Saving Private Ryan. And the lens technology of the last 20 years is absolutely incredible--with stuff like the Cooke S4 series, the sharpness you get is just incredible. So, a movie from the 1970s like Star Wars, because it was shot on older lenses and stocks that aren't as clear and defined as today, might only pick up 4K picture information in the best of instances. It's hard to say without examining the negative itself, but that is generally what should be the case.

That's why you can't say "film=[this resolution]". Maybe it does for one film, but on another film it will be totally different. 35mm has no fixed resolution, the resolution is the lens and the stock and in ideal conditions with modern stocks and lenses it performs at about five thousand lines of resolving power but in practice it will fluxuate depending on the production and even the shot.

Also bear in mind that most films are done in 4K D.I.s these days so even in the rare case where you exceeded 4K resolution, the actual negative you print out will be 4K resolution because that is what the camera negs were scanned at. So, cool you used the best lenses and stocks and I count 5500 lines on the lens chart, that is great, but the negative becomes a 4K digital file so you threw away the difference, and then prints and downconversions just get degraded from there. In most cases though, an 8K scan is unnecessary. In the traditional world, also, if we doing straight film to film, the negative is not the completed movie, it would have no colour correction, and any opticals would already be second generation, so by the time your pristine Interpositive is printed it's a mix of second and third generation film material and probably only shows just above 2K resolution.

So, uh, I've gone on an aimless tangent here, but what I'm trying to say is that Cameron both has a point, because pixel count ("resolution"...which really isn't an accurate term in the sense that we are using it) isn't everything, and his notion of frame rate and perceived resolution is interesting and probably correct, but I don't think anyone that worked with film would say HD can beat 35mm film. I did a bunch of tests in 2007 using the camera Attack of the Clones was shot on, among others, and 35mm and the difference was night and day. That was 2007 though and things have improved greatly since then, but I still find it hard to believe. Chainsaw Ash's own tests seem to confirm my suspicions.

James Cameron is full of shit. You can see the difference between a 35mm negative and 1920x800 with your eyes. What he's talking about is digital 4K camera capturing, which is different than scanning a film.

I saw Inception digitally a couple weeks ago and the picture quality was awful. Tons of artifacts, and a general softness. I forgot once the movie got going because its an absorbing piece of cinema, but once you start examining the image you can see how weak it is. Of course projection is not the same as capturing. Resolution isn't the be-all end-all for film, otherwise everyone would be shooting on 65mm and IMAX. Especially when it comes to video--don't forget, DVD and VHS have the exact same resolution, but one looks like shit and the other can be projected in a small screening room to pretty good quality.

However, as it relates to scanning a film from 35mm in 4K this is a separate issue. You can film something in 1920x1080 today and have it look pretty good because the sensors of the cameras have improved. The prequels look like shit not just because of the resolution, but because of the sensors, which were 2/3" CCDs, and with 4:2:2 colour. But when you start comparing scanning 35mm in HD and 4K its a totally differerent game. An HD scan simply cannot retain the same amount of picture information that a 4K scan can, because there is more information on the negative than 1920x1080 is capable of displaying. This talk about HD cameras versus 4K cameras is misleading because a telecine machine is not the same as motion picture camera.

Jacobss said:

I am asking myself what is Lucas actually thinking with digital scans of his films? As far I understand - Episodes 2 and 3 are stuck on 1080p (is 1080p similar to 2K?) so there is nothing he can do. Episode 1 was shoot on 35 mm tape and theoretical the best possible scan can be 4K, but all FX was done on 2K, so it's impossible to achieve anything more than 2K scan?

As for the OT - 1997 SE is only 2K right? And 2004 SE only 1080p?

Yes. As far as I know this is the resolution of the releases:

-1997 SE: 35mm originals with 2K digital enhancement scans. So only the new CG stuff is at 2K, with the rest being unscanned 35mm originals.

-TPM: 2K. The film was shot on 35mm film, but every shot was scanned. As far as I know, the digital intermediate that resulted was 2K.

-AOTC and ROTS: 1080p. Which is 1920x1080. But because this was cropped for widewscreen it is in reality less, about 1920x800.

-2004 SE: 1080p or 1920x1080. So just under 2K.

So why such very important films are preserved at such low resolution? I am saying low, because now we have 1080p at home, but what will be when we get 4K? And when theathers will show films in 8K? There will be no possibility to enjoy Star Wars in such beautiful quality... I don' understand Lucas - I know he don't want the original trilogy to be preserved, but why his loved SE is stuck at 1080p? Is it still possibly to do 4K scans of the OT? I mean both the SE and original from 77-83.

It is unlikely that theatres will ever show stuff in 8K, but 4K projection would be nice. And yes, because the OT is 35mm you could scan it in 4K, even 8K if you wanted to but there wouldn't be much point to that. The 1997 could be re-scanned in 4K, but the new shots would be 2K-only because thats the resolution they were created in.

And why were Episode 2 and 3 shot only in 1080p?

Because Lucas adopted HD technology so early this was the highest resolution possible at the time.

Someone said that for BD release Lucas will use scans from 2004 - what is bad about them for BD release? - I know the colors are bad, but what is about quality? I though those scans will be enough for BD, but only for BD...  I heard the Episode 2 and 3 on DVD where already captured from digital source, so it's does not matter if the BD Episodes 2 and 3 will be from the same master as DVD. And as for Episode 1, Adywan said there is already new master used for future releases so there is hope it will no suck.

As for 8K scans - whats the point of scanning the 35 mm prints into 8K? I though the best possible resolution of 35 mm film is the 4K scan?

I am noob in this area, so thats why I am asking.

 Basically you are right, 35mm film typically does not resolve more than 4K resolution, 8K scanning is for 65mm and such, but the thinking is "why not just do it anyway, just to be a completist?"

Yeah, I remember chapter skipping the romance scenes so it was pure Kenobi P.I stuff and thinking "hey this is pretty good!"

Nice, very nice. They have edited it slightly. His original entry had him ordering extremely angry for no reason. "Gimme an EXTRA LARGE PIZZA. With mushroom, and pepperoni. BITCH!"

Do any Canadians remember that Pizza Pizza commercial with Bret 'The Hitman' Hart from like a decade ago? "I'm gonna CRACK THE CARDBOARD!" What the hell was that about? But suddenly I am reminded of it.

Haha, nice find. Nothing new since on Dale Pollock's visit to the ROTJ set he noted how Lucas checked through the lens of each shot and was even seen moving cameras around. But this is a very telling photograph. It looks like Muren beside him, so where is Marquand? My guess is that this is second unit stuff. He directed most of the second unit himself. I'm surprised the second unit is using what looks like Carrie Fisher though.

g-force said:

Doctor M said:

Hey, just a quick OT thank you.

I was working on another project today and the source had some unpleasant aliasing.  I remembered a line in this script about it:

[code]########## anti-alias
NNEDI2(dh=true, field=0)
NNEDI2(dh=false,field=1)[/code]

I've never seen that done before, I'm not sure HOW it works, but it does a beautiful job.

Thanks.

 I'm glad it's useful even outside of the GOUT sources. You may not like the answer on how it works, but here goes anyway:

1. neural-network interpolate a line in between every line of resolution.

2. throw away all original lines and neural-network interpolate every line in between the first interpolated lines.

3. the next step that you didn't include is to resize back to original height.

That's right, there are absolutely no original lines of resolution remaining from the source. They are all interpolated. Kinda scarey I know, but it works amazingly well, doesn't it?

-G

Haha, this is pretty awesome. I'm amazed at how advanced fan-based coding is becoming. I wonder how long until someone builds a freeware code to do the sort of dirt-replacement algoirthms that Lowry uses. In principle it doesn't seem like it is impossibly complicated...

Or at least crackable.

Careful, he said the same thing about the 2004 sound mix. :p

J/K, actually the 2004 mix sounds much better when played in stereo, it hides all the surround flaws.

Wow dude, get a fucking grip and stop being such a whiny baby. You kept saying that it didn't bother you that I had a criticism of SOMEONE ELSES script (not even yours) but the truth comes out. Everyones work deserves criticism. Including my own. And I wouldn't want to release something without people making constructive comments, this is how we improve, especially if what people are saying is legit. But again, isn't any criticism I had of the image something for G-force to be concerned about? You seem to act as though the credit is your own, but your efforts are mainly making an audio package to G-force's script and then authoring a release, right, so what is the deal in the first place?

Also, educate yourself. The "old ass" Technicolor print is the best reference available, not the GOUT. Neither are perfect, we are dealing with best available. If you read posts you might know why. As it stands, you just make yourself look more than a bit immature.

I don't have a problem with anyone. I criticized the previous releases (in, like, a total of three instances or so), and thats it, there were elements that merited criticism and everyone should be open to it. My criticisms of the past ones weren't even relating to Dark_Jedi, if anyone it should be G-force that shouldn't like it because the imaging work was his script, DJ's main original efforts are in the audio which I have always praised. If DJs previous comment was directed at me like Vbangles then thats just stupid since I didnt start or bring up that tangent but was correcting and adding to a discussion already in progress.

Yeah, WTF? Do you disagree with that paragraph? Or do you just not care? If you disagree then you are probably wrong but at least tell me why, and if you don't care then why the hell would you enter a discussion on restoring Star Wars?

So, I looked in my email inbox and there was an email from google reporting this. I have requested a review to get it removed, hopefully will be gone in a day or two.

none said:.

In AotC, when Obi-wan is questioning Jango on Kamino, very reminiscent of a wild west stare down or a cop interviewing the perp he 'knows' did it but doesn't have the proof which could hold up in court.

I forgot about that one. Great scene. I remember when I was first watching it I was thrilled that there was finally a scene between two decent actors where the scene wasn't about what was being said but what wasn't. It's the only scene where Temura Morrison gets to act, which is a shame because he was really good there. He's got a great face for close ups too, like someone out of a Sergio Leone film. But he's tossed on the screen and then off, as though Lucas didn't know what to do with him, a defining characteristic of that movie unfortunately.

ChainsawAsh said:

This is all true, but it I think that movies scanned at higher than 1080p (2K-4K) resolution tend to look better when downscaled to 1080p than those scanned at 1080p to begin with.

 I agree as well.

I just downloaded the Technicolor IB page and checked the HTML source. The malicious code is not there. Is it possible that the site was flagged because it had the code briefly in the past? Because I literally have not updated the site within the last week so its not something that has changed online.