It was inexcusable of Cameron, yes. Pushes all this technology and then goes and does a Lucas.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Best Blu-Ray transfers
- Thread starter NIGHT-
- Start date
- Status
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Isn't it true that Episode II was shot at 720P?
Theonik
Member
Negatives allow for higher resolution scans than prints do. 8k is chosen rather than 4k because it means that they won't need to make new scans for a long time by going that route.
Avatar is a special case though. I think that the digital cameras at the time were limited to 2k for 3D, so I don't think Cameron explicitly chose to shoot at a lower resolution rather decided that 3D was more important.
But film people are talking about scanning negatives when they say 4 or 5K is where the usable resolution of 35mm caps out. 8K is typical for 70mm film, not 35mm. As far as my (minimal, so I could be wrong) research goes, using 8K on a 35mm negative is just wasting resolution. There's not really any more usable visual information being stored.
starchild excalibur
Member
For the longest time I was a proponent of film always being superior to digital, but as new technologies emerge I find that a lot of the reasons I was a proponent are starting to erode. Digital cameras are now matching film in dynamic range and resolution (at least standard 35mm film resolution). The workflow is faster and the RAW files have an incredible amount of latitude to play with in post. My friends and I have been shooting short films on Epics and Alexas for almost a year now and it's crazy to think that these advancements in technology have democratized the filmmaking process to the degree that they have. While our films won't look as visually stunning as Drive or TSN, a lot of that is because there's still a canyon between what we can afford to do in post and what Hollywood can. Still, there's headway being made in the game.
I think it's great to still have film as an option for those that still choose to use it, but I find that a lot of the "film look" that was always a big argument in absolute favor of film is becoming more and more achievable with digital. The fact that many respected DPs like Deakins are starting to migrate is just proof of this IMO.
I think it's great to still have film as an option for those that still choose to use it, but I find that a lot of the "film look" that was always a big argument in absolute favor of film is becoming more and more achievable with digital. The fact that many respected DPs like Deakins are starting to migrate is just proof of this IMO.
Couldnt they just add a grain filter to digital movies.. or is that not ideal?
Woah only mentioned once in this thread.
Unfortunately these jpeg images of Crank 2 are the only pictures I could find.
starchild excalibur
Member
I'm not sure, to be honest, of what filters exist or how natural they look. I guess by "film look" I meant more in regards to the softness (non-digital-looking) of the image as well as the color space. I've heard great things about the Alexa especially in that regard. A couple of my friends prefer to use it over the Epic (despite it being lower resolution) because the image is a little softer. I've never shot with it, though.
BotoxAgent
Member
These are the gold reference standards for me:
The first two Pirates of the Carribean movies
King Kong
Blade Runner
The first two Pirates of the Carribean movies
King Kong
Blade Runner
Jaws 100th Anniversary edition is immaculate, fantastic quality
Does anyone know how the recent Jurassic Park release is? I have the DVDs, is it worth dippin' again?
This is so neat.
I love documentaries like this.
Holy Christ, it's like you just told me you have a twelve inch dick. I feel so... inadequate.
A lot of the obvious ones were already mentioned, but Watchmen was good to watch in 1080p. I also enjoyed the Criterion transfers of Videodrome , The Red Shoes and Solaris, though I'm sure that collection has better Blu-ray discs to offer. The Dark Knight Trilogy was alright, too. I also hear good if not great things of Coraline and ParaNorman, but I haven't gotten to those yet.
XANDER CAGE
Member
Anything animated:
Man, single frames of this really reveal the digital-ness of the art. That's some straight up default Photoshop brushes.
Lotr has color correction issues
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Isn't it true that Episode II was shot at 720P?
No. It was shot with 1080p cameras.
The improvement made for the next movie was shooting with full resolution in the color difference channels. If Episode II isn't 1080p, then neither is Blu-ray.
What, the darker parts of the lion? You're way off.
It's a separate pencil drawing that was colored and then composited on top. They just blurred the edge with a filter.
I want to add Life of Pi to the mix here. That one is spectacular.
For Blade Runner, any edition that has The Final Cut is the best one. That's the restored version.
For Blade Runner, any edition that has The Final Cut is the best one. That's the restored version.
just watched Flight, with Denzel. Pretty good movie, the PQ was excellent. Really as it should be, any movie that was filmed recently should look good as long as someone wasn't asleep at the wheel during some point.
End of Watch pretty good as well, though not the "handy cam" parts.
End of Watch pretty good as well, though not the "handy cam" parts.
ThisWreckage
Banned
It's kind of amazing that King Kong was one of the first Blu Rays released and it still holds up as showcase material.
MisterFalcon
Member
The Italian Job from 1969 looks fantastic on BR like it was shot yesterday.
- Status