What's new

Digital to Digital picture not as good? (1 Viewer)

Felix Martinez

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 27, 2001
Messages
1,504
Location
South Florida
Real Name
Felix E. Martinez
AOTC looks soft period, partially to hide the low-res digital cameras used to shoot it. It looks that way in every format
This makes no sense. Why would anyone need to "hide" resolution above DVD's resolution of 480i (or p)?

Re: the soft look of EP 2 - look at the LDs of the original trilogy. Talk about soft and filtered!

I'll take the EP2 DVD video quality over the EP 1 DVD any day!

Cheers,
Felix
 

FredK

Second Unit
Joined
Mar 26, 2003
Messages
466
This makes no sense. Why would anyone need to "hide" resolution above DVD's resolution of 480i (or p)?
The blurring occurs on digital->film transfers for the theater. I don't know if it is a result of the transfer or "intentional" as is suggested.

The cameras for Ep2 have 1080 lines at 24p, so there's more than enough info for a perfect transfer to dvd format. The movie was a little soft at the theater (some of it just oversaturation), and the IMAX prints have some exaggeration (though I really enjoyed seeing the IMAX run).

As for reference, this is the best footage of live actors available and the compositing edges are very clean (unlike TPM:EE!). The absence of grain is the key factor here. While I tend to show good transfers of films people are more familar with, I support that Ep2 is the best, sustained, a/v demo available.
 

Inspector Hammer!

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 15, 1999
Messages
11,063
Location
Houston, Texas
Real Name
John Williamson
Jeremy,

just want to add one more thing about the break-in period for you new set, be sure to monitor closely your picture settings for changes as it breaks-in and keep calibrating when nessesary, it's normal for some drifting to occur in the first few weeks before everything settles down.

Like you, I noticed changes in my picture just in the first few HOURS after installation and use, and as the days and weeks went on it got better still until it finally settled into a sustained picture. I still calibrate, just like once a month now as opposed to every few days.
 

Scott Burke

Supporting Actor
Joined
Nov 27, 2000
Messages
510
Location
United States
Real Name
Scott B.
The print looks good to me. However, this has a real "digital" look to the film, nothing looks natural. However, I have always thought it was a consequence of all the digital effects.
 

Matt Stone

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2000
Messages
9,063
Real Name
Matt Stone
The film looks and feels almost like a Pixar animated film. It looked this way to me on film prints (all-be-it a little too grainy and soft at ties), and the digital transfer (is that the correct word?) as well. I never had a problem with this though, so the DVD looks fine to me.
 

Jeff Kleist

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 4, 1999
Messages
11,266
The problem that I have is that in addition to the general grain and such you get w/Pixar, you get video artifacts

You can see CCD noise in many darker scenes, and the meadow has awful video artifacting on the film prints
 

Felix Martinez

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 27, 2001
Messages
1,504
Location
South Florida
Real Name
Felix E. Martinez
I didn't say it was references. I think there is a big difference between "not-reference" and "horrible." I think it looks better than most transfers I've seen, but as a frame of reference, I prefer LOTR FOTR:EE for it's more film like look.
LOTR:EE does have a more film-like look, as it was shot on film.

Now, a few thoughts about hi-def resolution and film prints...

Remember, while LOTR was shot in Super35, the entire film was digitally graded; which basically means, the film prints, DVD transfer, etc. came from a hi-def source (after digital color correction) and *not* film - just like EP 2. The theoretical extra 2k of film resolution of LOTR was seen by *no one* (other than the filmmakers and the lab) and was discarded as soon as the footage was scanned into the computer. I don't see many people arguing about the shortcomings of hi-def resolution re: LOTR film prints. Same resolution...

And, actually, as only the "live" elements of EP 2 were photographed digitally (against blue or green screen), the other 90% of the frame is a first generation, non-photographed image, so any noise, softness, etc. in the backgrounds is not due to the hi-def digital camera used. In fact, EP 2 is basically an animated film with a few live elements. The look is intentional, and I wouldn't be surprised if Lucas & co. went out of their way to *degrade* the image (just as was done with the VistaVision effects in the first Star Wars films, to match the grittier non-fx footage).

I've played around with the Sony 24p camera that was used on EP2, and I can tell you that you can get an absolutely smackingly sharp, jaw-dropping image if you want to.

My $.02
Felix
 

Felix Martinez

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 27, 2001
Messages
1,504
Location
South Florida
Real Name
Felix E. Martinez
You can see CCD noise in many darker scenes, and the meadow has awful video artifacting on the film prints
I did notice the noise in a few live action shots in EP2, but as I've seen the Sony 24p cam's excellent performance in low-light level situations personally, I don't believe this is a shortcoming of the camera. Don't know what it is tho...(I did read somewhere that Lucas dicked around with a few shots by zooming into some digitally photographed elements - maybe this is what happened).

What were the film print video artifacts in the meadow? Just curious.

Cheers,
Felix
 

Howard S

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 16, 2000
Messages
71
.....a real "digital" look to the film, nothing looks natural.
I would generally agree with this sentiment, and found that at times I couldn't totally 'lose myself' in the film's story, as the 'un-naturalness' of certain shots kept on bringing me back to reality. However, I then couldn't quite put my finger on the underlying reason. At first I thought it was due to the FX shots, but even some of the live action shots didn't quite 'look right'.

In the end I concluded that I have grown up watching film, and associate the film's organic grain, the very slightly unstable image, the greater (and I speak from a fairly uneducated viewpoint here) range of brightness and colour levels, and even specks of dirt, with the exciting experience of going to a movie theater and watching a movie.

In my mind I associate rock-steady, grain free, less detailed and (although not in this case) overly contrasty images with television programming, and, I concluded, without film, some of the movie magic is gone.
 

Geoff_D

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jul 18, 2002
Messages
933
I sadly have to say that I share Howard's viewpoint. I never thought that I would ever watch a movie/transfer that so consistently pulls me back to reality, but AOTC is that movie. The all-digital environments are ruthlessly exposed by the digital transfer, looking totally at odds with the live-action elements. I honestly have to say that I enjoyed AOTC more projected on film, and likewise for the transferred-from-film TPM dvd.

The dvd transfer of TPM shows the grain on the print that seems to blend the elements together so much better and there's a real sense of depth to the image. The all-digital backgrounds in TPM (like the podrace canyon) look photo-realistic IMO, whereas AOTC's (Kamino, Coruscant) look more like photo-shop on the dvd. The haloing is greatly reduced on the PAL versions of TPM as well, making it all the more enjoyable. I appreciate that TPM and AOTC were shot using very different methods, but I can't help but feel that a film-to-dvd transfer would have aided AOTC immensely.

And I seem to remember Lucas actually saying that in order to keep a consistent look to the movies (on dvd) they would all be transferred from film, regardless of how they were shot. I've no idea if such a quote exits though.
 

Matt Stone

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2000
Messages
9,063
Real Name
Matt Stone
the main "sets" that I have problems with are the various "large hall" shots in Coruscant. Especially the one where Obi-Wan is walking with Mace and Yoda (on that damn floaty thing). It consistantly makes me say, "Why didn't you just build a big hall!!" I thought for the most part the Kamino stuff was great (here's my shout-out to Taun We fan's across the world--Tim, I'm talking to you), except for the scene where Obi-Wan is talking to the Prime Minister (or whoever the hell he is). The "backdrops" look so white that it makes me want to shoot myself.

In whole though, the animated look of the film makes it seem more like a comic book experience to me. It's different than all of the other Star Wars films, but I enjoy a change every now and again.
 

greg_t

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 18, 2001
Messages
1,654
I would like to get Bjoern Ray's feelings on the Episode 2 transfer. He put on his website a while back that he was going to compare the R1 and R2 releases, but he hasn't posted anything new in quite some time.
 

Dave Mack

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2002
Messages
4,671
Felix, I am SO jealous that you got to play around with that camera!!!!!!

I have a humble Sony VX2000 Mini-DV...


:) D
 

Jeremy Jones

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
140
Okay. You want to hear the REALLY weird thing? I just popped in Close Encounters, one of my favorite movies, and one that I thought the quality of the picture was terrible, judging from my last set. Now, it looks great! I guess I'm going to have to take another look at Episode 2. Maybe just a settling in problem. I'm really starting to hate that EVERYTHING isn't in 16:9. ;)
 

Jeremy Jones

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
140
Yep. Episode 2 looks fine now. I guess it also helps if you setup your dvd player to be in 16:9 mode. :b And I thought I was a home theater buff!!! I was wondering why I had to zoom to get the black bars out. I know. Shame, shame! But, at least I don't have to go out and buy Episode 2 again!
 

Tim Glover

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 12, 1999
Messages
8,220
Location
Monroe, LA
Real Name
Tim Glover
Matt Stone writes:

"I thought for the most part the Kamino stuff was great (here's my shout-out to Taun We fan's across the world--Tim, I'm talking to you), except for the scene where Obi-Wan is talking to the Prime Minister (or whoever the hell he is)."

:laugh:

Prime Minister is Lama Su.

And lets not kid ourselves...Taun We would look sexy in any format: film to video, video to film, video to video :D

My set is not Hi-Def so I don't see what you all are seeing on maximum resolution sets. Mine is a 53 inch Sony TV. That being said, AOTC produces the best video of any dvd I own.

When I get my Hi-Def set soon I guess I'll have to change my view :wink: of that.
 

Mark Bendiksen

Screenwriter
Joined
Mar 16, 1999
Messages
1,090
it's not reference in my book.
Nor my book. It definitely looks good on my Toshiba widescreen set, but it's not what I would call "reference", although that's admittedly a subjective term. My idea of reference is Moulin Rouge. That disc is a feast for the eyes (and ears).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,629
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top