What could AOTC be like on home video? (1 Viewer)

[Damin J Toell]

And judging from the myriad of opinions from people who've seen both, I think it's safe to say that.

Well, I can't speak to the myriad of opinions out there, but I saw AOTC once on film and twice in DLP. If the film projection had any faults, it was that it exposed the inherent limitations of the way in which the movie was made to a greater degree. That seems to me to be a quite dubious definition of "superior."
DJ

 

[Jeff Kohn]

Lucas apparently thinks that digital projection is the ideal way to see AOTC in theaters, so why wouldn't he think that a digital transfer would be optimal for DVD? Transferring from a film print for the DVD would be a mistake IMHO. AOTC projected from film was definitely lacking resolution in the theater both times I saw it. Going from HD to film back to digital for DVD makes no sense. And I don't think the CGI effects would "pop-out" in a digital transfer, because I haven't heard anybody make that complaint after seeing AOTC in a digital theater.

 

[Damin J Toell]

AOTC projected from film was definitely lacking resolution in the theater both times I saw it.

Was the film actually lacking in resolution? Or did it just make it clear to you how lacking in resolution the source material was? There's a world of difference between the two.

DJ

 

[Terrell]

Was the film actually lacking in resolution? Or did it just make it clear to you how lacking in resolution the source material was? There's a world of difference between the two.

I don't believe either I nor Jeff ever implied it was films fault. Only that since it was shot digitally, the best way to see it was through a digital projection system. We film, at least at present, has a higher resolution. For how long, remains to be seen. The reported resolution of the new cameras that Lucas hopes to shoot Episode III with is 10 million pixels. That's more than 4 times the resolution of of the cameras used for AOTC, which had a resolution of 2.2 million pixels. This is exacty why there needs to be a minimum standard, because digital is evolving and maturing so rapidly.

George, give me that digital transfer. I know it's a pipe dream.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Only that since it was shot digitally, the best way to see it was through a digital projection system.

If hiding the faults of a movie's source material by giving the viewer a presentation with a lower resolution is considered "superior," I guess I just don't prefer "superior" presentations.
DJ

 

[Dharmesh C]

We do know that Van Ling is aware of it, but who knows if he's producing AOTC

He IS producing the DVD.

 

[CamiloCamacho]

Terrel, no offense, but you don't know what you're talking about. 35mm film has about 5x the resolution of DVD, and so do the HD cameras. Don't worry about resolution

But if you transfer a Beta Tape to DVD (Example: With episodes of Mission Impossible), you are not getting DVD quality, you get at much Beta quality with a bit of filter.

So, when you transfer the HD image to 35 mm, at best you get HD image, not 35 mm. Also there you have to make two conversions HD->35mm->Mpeg2(DVD) VS HD->Mpeg2(DVD). I think the second is the best way, and if they want a 35 mm like copy, please, apply a filter (being a digital image, this is not a problem)

 

[Josh Lowe]

If they do a direct digital to digital transfer like the 'Toy Story' films, the CGI work in the film will stick out like a sore thumb.

"HEY! That giant crab monster is FAKE!"

 

[Dan Brecher]

I'm rather terrified of some of the darker scenes. The more I watched AOTC in DLP, the more it bugged me, most notably in the coruscant interior scenes. That downgraded to 480i doesn't give me a whole lot of confidence.

Dan

 

[Neil Joseph]

Regarding the quality of the film print... I think various cinemas were inconsistent. I can compare between two different locations. They were like night and day, with one looking grainy & soft, and the other looking great.

I just hope that the transfer is kept relatively free of edge enhancement. I cannot understand why any is needed. With the proper care, there is no reason why this should not look as good as any other recent live action movie with CGI work on DVD.

 

[JenaroM]

I think that the AOTC DVD will be a direct transfer from digital, so that GL can evidently show the world the difference between a movie shot on film (TPM) and a movie shot on digital (AOTC).

Maybe that's why they put the EE on TPM, so that people will really notice a difference on AOTC.

 

[Bjoern Roy]

Jeff,
i have to strongly disagree with a lot of your comments here.

Note that they used the same process on Phantom Menace, so who knows how it'll turn out.
We do know that Van Ling is aware of it, but who knows if he's producing AOTC...

Last time i heard, Van Ling and the good folks at THX were denying that there is any ringing in the TPM transfer that is their fault. So we can have really high hopes if the same people are responsible for the next SW transfer...
Bjoern

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Bjoern, by modern I meant discs coming out today.

Van Ling has publically stated that he will go looking to see the halos you're complaining about, and attempt to solve the problem.

 

[Joshua Moran]

I agree with Neil on this one. The first showing of Fellowship I watched was really blurry. I looked to my friend and asked if he saw it to because I thought I was getting a migrain and that affects my vision. But when I took my wife to see the movie at a different theater there was a night and day difference in the print. I think alot of it comes from not being interlocked and possibly a new bulb in the projector.

 

[William Ward]

Unfortunately Jeff, they do their transfer work looking at 20 inch studio monitors.... WHile they're better than consumer grade 19" TVs, the lack of size will hide many of the problems that will grow apparent at even modest televisions(32" and up).
But they aren't after the market share of the uber HT enthusiasts with FP setups. They've already got those guys. They're after Joe Blow who hears from an equally Joe Blow friend that the picture is darned sharp and looks great(on his 19" TV via a RF/RCA hybrid connection).

 

[William Ward]

Yes, the projector has much to do with your viewing of the film. I saw it 10 times, only about 4 of those times was the projection up to snuff. One time it was out of focus on the left half of the screen, other times there was a small window in the very middle of the screen that was in focus and the rest was out of focus.

Just so you know it's not the film, the trailers previous(most notably the credits where you could see letters) were also blurry.

I'm crossing my fingers that this one isn't FUBARed like the last one.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Damin, you're mincing words. You know exactly what I'm talking about. The reason the film looked blurry was not a fault of film. It was the fault of trandferring a digital source to a film medium, and projecting that to a much larger size. And the digital viewing AOTC was projected onto a bigger screen than any of the film viewings I had, and it still looked better than the film version looked. It retained it's clairty and detail. All I can go by is what I saw with my own eyes.

The film prints of Attack of the Clones are not less sharp and are not lacking in detail compared to the digitally projected version of the film, but they do appear less sharp, and here's why:
The individual pixels making up the projected image when viewing the film digitally are perfectly sharp with well-defined edges. They are much larger than film's grain structure.
Here is an easy comparison you can do at home. Scan yourself up an image, or shoot something with a digital camera. Make it, say, 100 ppi, and 400x500 pixels. It'll look great and clean and sharp on your screen, but if you print it on a photographic quality printer (for instance, I use an Epson Stylus Pro 7500 that prints 1440 x 1440) at 4x5 inches, it will look soft. Why? Because the more detailed print from your printer reveals the limitations of the source material.
Trust me on this -- I spend a lot of my time explaining to people why the image file they have on their floppy disc is not of appropriate quality to make a poster from, even though it looks just great on their screen.
Anyhow, a film print of Attack of the Clones contains more information than the digital original -- but the extra information is just interpolation, not real extra data. A DVD transfer from either source should be adequate. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a transfer from film would be less sharp than a transfer directly from digital.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

If they screw up the transfer like they did with TPM then it doesn't matter what source it comes from: digital or film. Even if TPM had no ringing or edge enhancement, or compression problems the source print was still not pristine and had numerous scratches and dirt/hair present. Plus the film had slight bob and weave due to stretched sprocket holes on the negative used. A piss poor effort on THX and Lucas' part.

I saw AOTC twice (ugh!!) at two different theaters. The problems most everyone are seeing with the film transfer have to do with the fact that film still has a much higher "resolution" than anything Lucas (or anyone else) can come up with right now in the digital video domain. Watching on a digital rig brings the resolution down to the level of the video master and you don't have as many problems.

It is too early IMHO in the game to start using digital video to make movies. If they came out with a camera and a storage medium (and a digital projector for theaters) that could resolve perhaps 4,000-5,000 lines of resolution (instead of HD television resolution) and be able to do low light recording then I'd say they've arrived... at 35mm 24 fps fine grain resolution. It still wouldn't hold a candle to 70mm or Maxivisions's 48 fps 35mm.

Spielberg is right, Lucas (and those in the industry pushing for digital at this time) is just plain wrong. You can experiment with digital video until it's ready for prime time, but don't shoot and protect at standard HDTV resolutions for your actual project.

Dan

 

[Jeff Kleist]

I agree that digital is not yet ready for primetime, I had a lot of issues with AOTC, and would frankly rather watch Super35 than digital.

Unfortunately Jeff, they do their transfer work looking at 20 inch studio monitors.... WHile they're better than consumer grade 19" TVs, the lack of size will hide many of the problems that will grow apparent at even modest televisions(32" and up).

Since he's now aware of the problem, don't you think there's at least a REMOTE possibility that he'll be checking it out on front-projection systems as well?

 

[William Ward]

Jeff, I hope so.....


If it's in Van Ling's power to get it fixed, then I'm sure he'll do it....i just hope he has the power to do it right...