Star Wars Episode III
 

I heard they shot that HD, 1920 x 1080 something like that which is native 16:9, but then how did they do the 2.35:1, just cropped, lost all that resolution? We saw a cropped 2.35:1 of a total of 1920 x 1080 resolution, is this true?

I asked the same thing a while ago. The conclusion was that there was no anamorphic lenses used and so it was "cropped", i.e. the pixels at the top and bottom was not used and so the resolution was only 1920x817. Amazing quality for just 1.56 MegaPixels :)

It was cropped. 10 bit CineAlta SR recorder and F950 camera with Fuji lenses were used.

I'm surprised they didn't use Panavision lenses like with the F900 on Ep. 2.

heath

Considering the majority of the film, if not all, is heavily composited, there is no real concern in the aspect ratio. Shoot the actors and then enter them into a digital set of what ever aspect ratio needed. It was probably never an issue to frame a full shot, or to put it another way, they were never limited by the resolution and aspect ratio of the cam in capturing the actors. It is not the old school of filmaking where a shot is framed and that is that. Three or four shots can make up a scene of which are combined with CG into whatever resolution/aspect ratio is required for post. The cam is now just A tool, not THE tool, from which the canvas is painted.

I have nothing against George Lucas but his filming everything for blue screen technique really bothers me... It's like the movie has lost it's soul.
Spielberg said we would never want to make a movie completely for a blue screen because it would be pointless for him as a filmmaker.
The art would be gone.
I have nothing against special fx, and in Sin City that artificial look worked, but it was used for another reason then Lucas who just thinks he can do everything with CGI.
Just doesn't have the same feeling, if you for instance cmopare it with Once Upon A Time in America where all the sets are real...

But that's all way off topic actually.

I loved Once upon a Time in America, but did you actually mean Once upon a Time in Mexico?

No, I did mean In America.
Sergio Leone didn't had CGI then ;-)
And you feel it, the movie has a real authentiek (not spelled correctly I suppose) feel about it.
The shots of those old streets and stuff, with the crane shots are wonderfull, with complete real sets!

When movies just use CGI it's lost a bit. I'm not saying CGI isn't good, but it's nice if it's only used when necessary because often you still 'feel' it's CGI.

Like Spielberg said: I like to work with real sets, they give me ideas and I want to honor the craft of making something on a full scale.

Because I heard also when they were busy with miniatures for I suppose LOTR (not sure about it, but I think so), George Lucas came by and he said: you know you could do that all with CGI, don't you?
But I think even miniatures look more real then CGI often.

Somehow most of the CGI in Episode III felt really obvious.

CG R2D2 didn't seem to feel very real. C3PO is super shiny so they had to paint out stuff frame-by-frame, and they missed stuff. Some of the backgrounds weren't even well done.

By the time they were showing wookies I thought they were composited in too!

I did like the CG cape on Grievous...

Look at the greatest art movies ever made, Visconti, Bertolluci, DeSica, Bergman, Antonioni, Zefirelli, etc. Digital effects would do nothing to improve these movies. Film is art, just like painting and music are art. Digital sffects were not needed to make the greatest film art.

While true in a sence, FX were not available to any of those directors, so it wasn't a choice for them. Lucas and his Star Wars lable, basically invented FX as we know it. Don't bash him for pushing the limits of technology. Someone had to do it. As a low budget filmaker digital techniques enable the little guy to produce previously impossible or highly expensive shots, which opens up a world of possibilities.

If you want to see FX-less Star Wars, just watch Jedi and tell me that little people stuffed into teddy bear suits, to play Ewoks, looks great. It doesn't. It looks like crap and is horribly obvious that it is a person and takes the realism out of the scenes. When it comes to FX I would rather see CG then the low tech equivalent.
To compare SW with Once upon a time in America, makes little sence to me. Two completely oposite movies. Did you want Lucas to fly to a galaxy far, far, away and film on location to get that authentic look to make you happy?

Ken,

First I want to say I actually admire Lucas for what he has done on the expertise of special fx and sound and image.
And you are perfectly right: those director's didn't had the choice.

But in the old star Wars films, he build some sets, and they look very real, much more real then some new CGI.
And I don't bash Lucas for using CGI, I just think he uses it too much, and it looks like he never wants to use miniatures and real sets anymore, while I think they provide still an extra realism.
He looses the art with it.
Spielberg uses much CGI too, but when he can build a set, he does, and he never looses focus of the story and the characters...

And also: the actors act different when all the stuff is in front of their eyes...

So, if you have computer generated Ewoks then they look real? You lost me there...

The CG characters of the last episodes look miles ahead of the old, my mouth doesn't even move little person in a teddy bear suit. No question.
Is CG the answer to everything? No it isn't. But it is the future of certain genre's if not most all filmaking to some extent. CG sets will continue to improve as will CG characters. Human actors will learn to act better on a digital set as well.

:-)

I was just going to say the same thing... How do you film Star Wars "on lcation"? :-)

Seriously though, I understand what he is saying. In Ep IV they filmed the desert scenes in Tunisia, not by using CGI (Ep I as well). Often building sets has a more "organic" feel to it. Just look at the first scenes in Alien where they went into the Alien ship or whatever. They looked great because Ridley Scott built HUGE sets. Degobah in Ep. V looked great, cause the swamp was a huge set. Not only that, but I would suspect that acting on a huge set brings the story more to life for the actors than acting in front a blue screen with blue tennis balls floating around for visual cues, and hence brings out a better performance overall.

Some of the effects looked great, and some were pretty obvious, and not in a good way. Overall, my complaint with his recent movies had nothing to do with the filming... Let's hope he can write or get an even half-decent script & actors for the Indiana Jones movie. No 20 minute useless love scenes, no stiff actors that bring zero character to the screen, no sucking out any & all irreverent humor that made characters like Han Solo so great, etc.


That being said, blue screen effects *can* be artistic. I think that the "look & feel" of Sky Capt. & The World of Tomorrow, though obviously blue & green screened, was definitely artistic. Whether you liked it or not, it was artistic if nothing else.

Alex F

Exactly Alex, that's what I mean.
Nice example of of Alien also!

And you're right, in Sky Captain and Sin City they are really artistic choices. It seems with the new Star Wars Films George Lucas never wants to build any set anymore because he can do it with CGI, and it makes his movie very un-organic. If uses with degrees, it comes more into balance, and what you told is indeed his biggest problem: his writing... Terrible.

back to the topic@hand,

http://imdb.com/title/tt0121766/technical
^i thought ep3 used 4k recording process instead of 2k, i'm really surprised that he stuck with 1920x1080, if lucas is satisfied, does this mean that 2k is "good 'nuff"?

did anyone see ep3 in DLP? i went to my local cinema with a 2k projector and the image looked very good across a 300' screen. i honestly think that a 4k projector would be overkill. thus, i don't understand why Warner Bros remastered Gone w/Wind, Wizard of Oz in 4k resolution when 2k is plenty.

on my projector @home (1024x768 native), the 1920x1080p resolution of T2 Extreme Edition looks awesome. even a 1080i broadcast or 720p movie looks so much better than regular DVDs.

I wonder, since they aren't shooting digital in 4k (as of right now, only the Dalsa Origin shoots in that and is too expensive to rent), do they need to master in 4k? Film is "4k," so I can see doing a DI in 4k and editing/outputting back to film that way.

heath

I was curious if T2 Extreme's WMHD DVD was 720p. I bought that 3 years ago and never saw the DVD (PC, fast, big monitor, Windows XP Pro--all of which I DON'T have).

heath

Visual effects is nothing new to great film.
2001
The original King Kong
Citizen Kane is LOADED with visual effects
Ben Hur

I'm a HUGE Star Wars fan (the 1977 film is what ultimately led me to what I do today), but I think the shortcuts in story and dialog are the real issue with series rather than the effects. There are very few instances where the effects pull me out of the story. Many are so realistic you probably wouldn't be able to know which elements are from a live set vs added in post.

As for resolution, only the Dalsa shoots digital 4k at the moment and they're waaayyyy more expensive than Sony's F950. With the Sony cameras, LucasDigital could have several cameras all over the world.

Sin City's effects were an artistic choice from the beginning, but much of Sky Captain's look was actually about hiding issues (that resulted from less than ideal shots and schedules) in a creative way. BTW, MOST of the sets in Star Wars are NOT CGI. Almost all are EXTENDED with CGI, but only a few are totally CG. Most of the areas directly around the action are real and beyond that, there is a LOT of "real" miniature and photographic work in use rather than "all CGI".

As has been noted, this is a galaxy far far away, so many of the effects are spotted easily only because they are simply impossible to do any other way and our experienced minds are aware of this even while we "suspend disbelief" for a little while to enjoy the moment.

Have fun. :)

Wanna know how expensive the Origin is?

http://dalsa.com/dc/index.asp

and

http://dalsa.com/dc/dcc/products/products.asp (their own rental house that rents EVERYTHING)

and

http://dalsa.com/dc/origin/origin.asp (daily prices--that's without a lens, recorder, etc.)

heath

T2's EE WMV-HD is 1920x1080@24p, 6.7mbps variable in 4 files totallying around 5 gigabytes.

since there is DRM involved, you'll need a PC to be connected to the internet in order to view the content.

This is where I get confused. All this talk of wasted pixels......

If one shoots Super 35 and crops it to a 2:35.1 is it wasting pixel's (resolution) ? Isn't what is being done by Lucas (and incidentally Rodriguez in Once Upon A Time in Mexico (Yes, I mean Mexico) the same thing in essence?

Isn't this what we do shooting digital ? It's not wasting pixels. It is'nt wasting anything.

And Ken; I'm not sure I'm following ? You are saying film the actors on the stage and then you have the option of 'Re-sizing' them in post?'. Who is doing this ?

---

CGi should always be used for all intense practical and enhancement purposes; not the end all of end all's like Lucas is doing.

And Mathieu; we know you meant Mexico ! ,:O'

I know with HDV you can zoom in around 70% before it gets too distorted.

heath

Hi Keith

What about film (new Vison of example) ?

Do you mean "Heath?"

heath

Yes I did (Sorry; on multiple thread's :P )

Just call me Mike to get even

I'm assuming that HD movies shot in 1080i/p are probably cut in 2k and put to film. I know that 35mm film is cut with a 4k DI.

heath