Jump to content


SW EP II - DVD - not the clearest?

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
27 replies to this topic

#1 of 28 Sergio Z.

Sergio Z.

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 96 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 25 2002

Posted January 04 2003 - 02:12 AM

Is it just me or does someone else agree that the EP II DVD is not as "clear" as they hype it up to be? Yes, I know they say it is a "digital clone"....Of course, the digital animation scenes are crystal clear and look spectacular, but the live action actors look horribly out of focus. Even when compared to the EP I DVD or even just other plain live action DVDs, like "The Insider". I would appreciate anyone's input or how to "fix" it.

#2 of 28 Ron Boster

Ron Boster


  • 1,151 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 10 1999

Posted January 04 2003 - 02:15 AM


I agree that the images at times look "soft." I assumed that was George's intent. I don't remember if it looked similar to the theater print.


#3 of 28 Jeff Kleist

Jeff Kleist

    Executive Producer

  • 11,286 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 04 1999

Posted January 04 2003 - 02:41 AM

The soft look is intentional

#4 of 28 Chris S

Chris S


  • 2,522 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 09 2000
  • Real Name:Chris S

Posted January 04 2003 - 04:00 AM

And I thought I was the only one who thought this. Whew!

The soft look is intentional

Any idea as to why? I like to thank of myself as a pretty big SW fan but I've never heard this before. Is it just to show off the CGI animation or is there some artistic reason?
DVD & Blu-ray - It's all about the movies!

#5 of 28 Adam Lenhardt

Adam Lenhardt

    Executive Producer

  • 14,109 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 16 2001
  • LocationAlbany, NY

Posted January 04 2003 - 04:12 AM

I don't see how they would be "horribly" out-of-focus. Slightly softer than the CG elements, sure, that's true. But it's not like the actors are totally blurry or anything.

#6 of 28 Ed St. Clair

Ed St. Clair


  • 3,320 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2001

Posted January 04 2003 - 05:24 AM

Sergio, from Rio; Tall, short...
Sorry, love that commercial.
And I, like many who will come to this post, am also with you on this 'fantastic ultimate' transfer.
After watching the DVD, I also watched Stripes.
And no one is going to shout at the top of their lungs, like the fans of the SW II transfer do, that this is the end of end all transfers.
Stripes was much sharper [as well as more film-like, duh!].
What did impress me about the SW II transfer, is field of depth. The smallest details of the furthest building in the background, were clearly depicted.
My hat's off to the digital transfer for that.
However, Ice Age [going further back, Monster, Inc.] would be my most resent choice for best transfer direct from the digital files.
Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!

#7 of 28 Greg_S_H


    Executive Producer

  • 14,836 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2001
  • Real Name:Greg
  • LocationNorth Texas

Posted January 04 2003 - 06:06 AM

It looks fantastic on my father's Loewe 16x9 w/a top-of-the-line Pioneer progressive scan player. Obviously, it's lower resolution than the theater, but not noticeably so. Not to me, at any rate. I don't care about the hype, but I know I couldn't be happier with the transfer.

#8 of 28 Patrick Sun

Patrick Sun

    Studio Mogul

  • 37,676 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 30 1999

Posted January 04 2003 - 06:22 AM

On my setup, I found the CGI to look very good, but the humans didn't look so good (a bit on the soft/grainy side).
"Jee-sus, it's like Iwo Jima out there" - Roger Sterling on "Mad Men"
Patcave | 2006 Films | 2007 Films | Flickr | Comic-Con 2012 | Dragon*Con 2012

#9 of 28 Ryan Wong

Ryan Wong

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 134 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 06 2002

Posted January 04 2003 - 07:23 AM

I think it is because of the video processor of your DVD player. I was using Sony's DAV-S500 Home Theater System(10 bit 27 MHz video processing) to watch my SW EPII DVD on my Philips 32" widescreen TV when I first bought it. I did realise all the humans and their faces looked very soft, compare to my other DVDs like Moulin Rouge and X-men, which the DVDs are produced FOX as well plus THX certified. I started to think whether it's because of my DVD player is not good enough to play this "Hi-End" DVD. Posted Image

And then I decided to buy a good DVD player. I bought Sony's DVP-NS915V (NS755V to US), which has the 12 bit 108MHz video processor in it. There is overall sharpness improvement on the picture. Humans and ther faces looked very clear and highly detailed. Now I believe in what all the DVD reviewers said - the best video quality. Posted Image

And now there is another problem - I can now see sometimes the actors didn't integrated well with the background, due to the actors are shoot in front of blue backgound.

Did anybody compare this before? Do you want to try?
Ryan Wong

#10 of 28 Aaron Cohen

Aaron Cohen

    Second Unit

  • 468 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 25 2002

Posted January 04 2003 - 08:45 AM

YES RYAN! I see excatly what you are talkinga bout. At several points in the film, I can see things where the blue screen did not exactly mesh well with the characters. In several scene's people's hair and arms do a little bit of warping and in others it just looks blah....

#11 of 28 Reginald Trent

Reginald Trent


  • 1,317 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 18 2000

Posted January 04 2003 - 09:36 AM

I too were disappointed by the look of the live action "Humans" in ATOC. Hollow Man and Blade2 looks better than ATOC on my Sony 36XBR400.

#12 of 28 Sergio Z.

Sergio Z.

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 96 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 25 2002

Posted January 04 2003 - 09:51 AM

Thanks to everyone for the input...now, do all of you have a progressive scan player? I don't...could that be the reason for the soft images on humans in EP II? I am using the composite videos connections to my Samsung HCM 4215W.

#13 of 28 Reginald Trent

Reginald Trent


  • 1,317 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 18 2000

Posted January 04 2003 - 10:12 AM


Does your TV have Svideo or component inputs? If so those should provide better picture quality than composite.

#14 of 28 Sergio Z.

Sergio Z.

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 96 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 25 2002

Posted January 04 2003 - 10:17 AM

sorry, guys, i meant component, not composite.....other live action movies look great...and the all cg movies (Monsters, Inc.) look awesome...I guess it's just the mix of live and CG

#15 of 28 Chris S

Chris S


  • 2,522 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 09 2000
  • Real Name:Chris S

Posted January 04 2003 - 10:50 AM

I'm using a Toshiba 5109 via progressive scan on a Toshiba TW40X81 via component cables. I, like Ryan Wong, thought it might be the age of my DVD player but that rationalize would not explain the clarity that I saw in the cgi characters.

Chris S.
DVD & Blu-ray - It's all about the movies!

#16 of 28 BertFalasco


    Supporting Actor

  • 850 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 14 2001

Posted January 04 2003 - 10:55 AM

Connected through component from Panasonic CP72 to the 65" Mitsu. WS-A65 it looks rather incredible. Regardless of my relative newness to a big screen TV it is stilldamn clear and looks really awesome.

#17 of 28 Talal


    Stunt Coordinator

  • 141 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 06 2002

Posted January 04 2003 - 11:01 AM

I think they had to go for a softer look, since the HD 24p system used picked up eveything too sharply.. it picked up any blemishes/marks on actor's faces(say, for close-ups), and would make the sets actually look like sets...

#18 of 28 Ron Boster

Ron Boster


  • 1,151 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 10 1999

Posted January 04 2003 - 12:09 PM

I using a PD-1100 DVD player (HTPC) which upscales to the naitive rate of my projector, which is a Cinema 13HD LCD FP. I know it's not the quality of the player, power conditioner, cables nor projector...it's the software.

#19 of 28 James Edward

James Edward

    Supporting Actor

  • 858 posts
  • Join Date: May 01 2000

Posted January 04 2003 - 01:08 PM

I am so glad someone brought this up. I too, was not impressed with this DVD. All the hype was quite a bit over the top if you ask me.
It looks to me to be the video equivalent of early CD's- tough to describe, but it seemed 'sterile'.
Napoleon, don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day. Besides, we both know that I'm training to be a cage fighter.

#20 of 28 Sean Laughter

Sean Laughter


  • 1,385 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 03 1999

Posted January 04 2003 - 02:26 PM

I've never seen the DVD but the IMAX theater I work at has been running teh IMAX version of the film. I find the shots on Coruscant to be completely washed out, and the people are particularly soft and blurry in any of those scenes. I've also noticed that "texture detail" like skin texture and rock texture completely blurs and disappears whenever someone or something even moves slightly, at least on the "real" (ie. not CGI) sets, objects and actors. It's particularly noticable in closeups because people's skin detail will disappear whenever they slightly move their head and then pop back in when they stop.

I've always wondered if these were results of the process they used to transfer the film to the IMAX 70mm stock or not. Seems at least the blurry stuff is not (as I don't think you'd be able to see the detail "blur" on the DVD anyway given the resolution.)

However, can someone check something for me. During the Yoda battle at the end, on the last shot when he's "catching" Dooku's lighting (right before he says "much to learn you still have") watch his left arm (the one not catching the lightning). As the last of the lightning goes aways does that arm pixelate really badly? It does on the IMAX print and I've always wondered if that was a result of the IMAX transfer or not. It's pretty large pixelation so I'd assume you could see it on the DVD if it's there.