Search results

...At which point you will say that people are overreacting, it's only a movie, these are Lucas' films, etc etc. C'mon Doug, we aren't stupid.

Same here. I just cancelled my order too. I watched the DVDs exactly once so what's the point of watching a hidef version of the same 8 year old transfer with more idiotic changes. There's plenty of other releases through the end of this year to enjoy.

What is your point Doug? Robert already said we are not arguing about legality. Do you think altering films and suppressing the original works in the way that George Lucas has is right or wrong? If your answer mentions legality then you are disqualified.

Well said. Of course, everyone full well knows this. Anything else is simply an exercise in being disengenuous.

No one said you will get more resolution in a digital image after scanning to film. The resolution of the raw digital effects is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT because the moment the digital effects are placed on film, they ARE NO LONGER DIGITAL. THEY ARE PART OF THE FILM IMAGE. The whole discussion...

Huh? Who said that? It's really simple dude. Jurassic Park is a film. There are digital effects but everything was finished on film. It was projected via film, on 50 foot screens. No one saw pixels. Because 1) They did not record a pixelated image onto the film, even though the effects are...

Here's what you are not understanding and for the life of me I can't understand why: Giving a film like Jurassic Park a 4K or 6K transfer in no way equates to "upsizing digital images". It is scanning a piece of film. That's it. The quality of the digital effects is irrelevent. They are burned...

It amazes me you can speak in such detail regarding YCM seps and yet have basics such as scanning and presentation resolutions and digital effects commited to film completely wrong.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if one went the route of a digital restoration by way of 4K scanning and then editing the appropriate sections in the digital domain, wouldn't this would be preferable to physical cutting in that you would not lose the heads or tails of opposing frames in the process?

That's a pretty convenient position you're taking there Doug.

IB tech print. Has nothing to do with 3-strip neg Technicolor photography.

He doesn't know.

Doug, Doug, Doug. A blu ray taken from a downrezed 4k scan captured on a modern Scanity will indeed look better than a bluray taken from an 8 year old 1080p telecine. It's the same situation as the early days of DVD. DVDs sourced from (then) new HD transfers would look better than DVDs sourced...

I deeply, fundamentally, with every fiber of my being, disagree with every single thing you just said. Where to start....

double post

Yes, they have. 4K is almost standard now for 35mm. The original Star Wars films were scanned at sub 2K, 1080p specifically, and more than 6 years ago. Closer to 8 years. Also, just because they were scanned at 1080p doesn't mean you are seeing the full detail of that original scan in the final...

So what exactly makes any of these points unique to Star Wars? All films become "dated" at some point. Do we need to update every film ever made? Y'know, The Birds has lots of obvious compositing effects, do those need to be redone with CGI? How about any scene with people in a car with obvious...