It's getting near completion. I will post some screen captures of the 18 minutes I received.
Thought it was already out?
I just downloaded and watched the Empire Strikes Back one...
>>63333663
The 35mm Grindhouse edition of ESB is out, but the proper ANH release is yet to come.
>>63333880
Doesn't the despecialized edition already use hd footage scanned from a non-faded 35mm print?
>>63333916
Only as reference material, none of it is actually in the release. There is a guy named Mike Verta who has done his own scan of an IB techniclor print and he cooperates with Harmy to ensure color accuracy. Mike won't release his own work beyond a screenshot here and there.
Looks really low res, but thats the nature of theatrical film prints. The public never saw 4K in a theater before digital unless they were looking at 70mm IMAX.
You're lucky to get clear 720p footage from regular prints.
What exactly is the difference between this pproject and the Despecialized Editions by Harmy or what his face was...
>>63335319
Ohit was already answered, sorry
>>63333997
>>63333651
wait is this the legacy restored edition?
I thought he wasnt releasing it?
>>63334461
>implying
>>63333997
fuck mike verta
>>63334461
Good film resolves out to about 4k or at least I've read
>>63335405
Maybe not before 1980
I don't know shit about this though.
>>63334461
What is this bullshit?
>>63335426
>>63335405
film has been 4k+ for nearly a century or some shit
the problem with star wars is that lucas intentionally used soft focus for the whole film to fudge the effects
![Star-Wars-Original-Trilogy-Changes-Aurebesh-Replaces-English[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/xrBmxRp.jpg "Star-Wars-Original-Trilogy-Changes-Aurebesh-Replaces-English[1].jpg")
Do these "despecialized"/restoration videos still maintain actually error corrections, like the english text on this thing or R2D2 appearing grey in scenes that feature a bluescreened space effect?
>>63335645
who fuggin cares lol
autism
>>63335722
ya rite wut fukn nerds lmao
>>63333661
I think I prefer Despecialized version of this shot.
>>63335645
The idea is to replicate what audiences saw in theaters when the film first released, so yes, it does undo changes which make sense
>>63335645
I can't remember what it does for the text but I know the despecialized versions do keep R2 looking gray in space scenes
>>63336270
>>63335645
Watched them looking for details like this, the despecialized restores the english text instead of the galactic basic
>There are manbabies that hate the special editions so much that they go full autismo and try to upscale the originals to hd
Mfw
>>63336498
>try to
Except they successfully did, and I get to benefit from the fruits of their autism by enjoying the original experience of watching star wars at the movies instead of having the movie butchered with additional CG
>>63334461
>>63335426
dvd = 8mm film
bluray = 16mm film
4k = 35mm film
>>63336498
>there are autists who actually like this and think its a positive change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jzZOgLH4KU
>>63336498
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3u70WELSEg
autism is what created these changes
>>63336617
Fuck, I've never seen this before. I've seen some of the other changes people usually complain about but good lord. Maybe I should hatewatch the Lucas changes.
>>63336498
>This post
>Upscaling
>manbabies
Hello Reddit. a 35mm negative scanned at 4k (2160p) and downscaled to 1080p will look absolutely fantastic.
If the source was a DvD and it was upscaled to 1080p, then you'd be right, but the dvd transfers are the laser disc pan and scan.
Whoever got a hold of a good condition 35mm scan is a god. I look forward to listening to the original audio and the viewing the film it was meant to be. I saw The Matrix and Jurassic Park 35mm scans and they look fantastic. The original negatives hold that beautiful celluloid colour that is missing from today's films and bluray releases. There's limited greens in The Matrix and less blues in Jurassic Park, plus it's uncropped - so you can see boom mics and other pieces of equipment. We'll be able to watch it in the aspect ratio of our choice too.
Which version has this scene?
>>63336617
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yxuDU8gims
Negative's release of Empire was disappointing. The despecialized cut is a better final product.
>>63336760
They pretty much scanned it and encoded it, didn't they?
>>63335405
This is a big musunderstanding people have about film.
Film has no "resolution" as we know it, it's not like going from 8mm to 32mm is like a jump from 480p to 1080p.
The quality of film scans that we get today is dependant on 2 thing:
a) The quality of film, whether the film used had a higher presence of silver hallide crystals used in cheaper film stocks (which is what gives film it's "grain", and how the film has degraded over time.
b) The quality of the digital scanner, these usually cost on the upper side of $1M, so fan restorations are going to be limited by money, even if they got perfectly preserved prints. This is also why so many people prefer to still shoot on film, a film shot on 1080p digitally is 1080p forever, film can constantly be remastered.
There are of course vast quality differences between films, but you shouldn't confuse film stocks with digital resolution.
>>63336831
Thank you for correcting the misinformation in this thread.
It makes me cringe to think that a number of works will be limited by whatever stage digital is at at the time of shooting. Remember when mobile videos first came in. The screen was garbage. That was ~10-11 years ago. In 10 years we've come so far. I wonder how a lot of these digital films will fare in 30-40 years. Fincher's films will look like vaseline in the future.
>>63334461
This is completely wrong.
If you really care to know why /tv/ you can read this:
https://hopa.memberclicks.net/assets/documents/2009_TR_Pres_HansKiening_4KSystemsTechnologyBrochure.pdf
tl;dr the maximum usable resolution of 16mm is above 2k and 35mm is above 4k for a handful of reasons.
>>63336982
Look at films like 28 Days Later, it already looks like shit, and it will never get better than that.
Fincher future proofs himself though, I believe he films at 8K, downscales to 4K for prints, then it usually goes to market at 2K or so. He stores master drives of his movies at hyper-resolution so that they won't age as fast.
I liked Temura's voice more then the original Boba voice.
>>63336831
Or, in other words, the old analog technology of the film is much better than the newfangled digital technology but thanks to marketing the public is conditioned to think that anything digital is better, cgi is better than practical effects, etc
>Capitalism and globalism
>Making everything shittier since the 80s
>Making the rich richer and the masses mindlessly accept all the bs the media feeds them
>>63337047
I thought he scanned shot at 6k. You're probably right though, or maybe it was mastered in 6k. I can't remember but yeah, a lot of early digital films are very soft and quite honestly, ugly. Look at Public Enemies, and that was in 2009. It hasn't fared well
>>63337067
Well, no. The public aren't conditioned to think that. I think a lot of moviegoers are aware of how ugly CGI is in the industry these days. What disturbs me is the amount of comments on old film masters - like The Good, the Bad, the Ugly. People complain about grain, "it has an ugly picture". I can't even believe grain is considered bad to a lot of modern people.
I remember people downloading YIFY and shit encodes from public P2P of The Perks of Being a Wallflower and complaining that the picture had noise, because it was shot on 16mm iirc.
>>63336498
>woman desperate for attention
lol get fucked
>>63337067
Well, I wouldn't say that's completely true. Cameras today are capable of shooting at native resolution much higher than what we can scan from digital prints, so it's not a huge issue of posterity yet.
Digital filmmaking is also much easier and cheaper to produce than celluloid film-stock,
In film you can't see what you've got until it's developed, if you spend hundrends of thousands of dollars on getting a crew to a location, setting up effects, doing a take, then finding out on your dailies that there was a smudge on the lens or the light wasn't right, then it's a huge waste. Not to mention the massive hassle that film-editing is over digital editing. There's also the issue of storage, film needs to be specially preserved otherwise it just crumbles to shit, digital can be stored on servers all around the world.
I'd say film is probably the better way to shoot, but digital is far easier, and with ever-increasing technologies the gap between the two will only diminish. It's a matter of personal preference these days. Hell, even people like Scorsese and Deakins have switched to digital lately.
>>63337118
No, you're right, I just checked and he did shoot on 6K, I don't know where I got that 8K number from.
>>63337153
Yes, the semantics of film make it less of a convenience than digital, but I think that it's a crime that it's going the way of the dodo. I can't remember the figures, but the amount of celluloid that is being produced has dropped 10+ times a year compared to 6 years ago. Studios need to make an effort to shoot on film where they can and keep the producers in business. Put some of the Hollywood accounting to work
>>63337338
But why? If digital is cheaper and easier to shoot on, and looks about the same these days, what's the point of sticking to film? It's like going from silent to sound, some things are lost, but much is gained.
>>63337367
shooting on digital is fine. It's clean and crisp, and easy when you don't want to put much in the way of money into what you're shooting on. But I feel you're basically shooting video, not film. That's okay. Especially when Digital looks great at times. I love the warm grain and texture of celluloid. There's something about it.
>I don’t like grain. It’s coarse and rough and irritating, and it gets everywhere. Not like Digital. With Digital everything’s soft... and smooth...
How did they get their hands on stock of the original films? Did they bust into Disney studios or what?
>>63337556
collector's who got a hold of them when the movies originally came out and preserved them
>>63337584
How do you preserve film?
>>63337610
Like a painting, vacuum-sealed vault.
>>63337610
cut it up in a million pieces, throw them all around a barber shop and light a match
>>63336700
Its on the last disc of the complete saga blu rays
