/starwars/ - Star Wars

Now this is just some blatant nostalgia/hipster pandering. The early digital cameras that were used to film Episode II and to a lesser extent III were a huge mistake that made the movies look incredibly cartoony. However the tech has come a long way, and digital has largely replaced film cameras for good reason.

Not to mention that 99% of theaters these days have digital projectors, so the end result the vast majority of people see is going to be seeing digital anyway.

>>4053

You ever seen action shots done with digital cameras? It looks horrible even michael bay had to use 35mm for some scenes in transformers 2 because digital always causes problems.

35mm is still transferred to digital and then back to print. If a film is shot on 4k digital, it's easy as fuck to give it film treatment and soften it up a bit if the money is there.

>>4054

That would mean nearly every movie shot since 2010 would have awful looking action scenes. Now unless you can post some actual concrete evidence of what modern digital cameras do wrong I think that is a pretty ridiculous claim.

>michael bay had to use 35mm for some scenes in transformers 2 because digital always causes problems

Transformers 2 had a few bits filmed with IMAX cameras to tap into that fake "IMAX" screen gimmick that had popped up in regular theaters. If I recall correctly the IMAX footage amounted to just a few minutes of screentime total, most of it within a single scene and the rest randomly spliced in among the normal footage.

>>4053

The further they get away from the visuals of AOTC the better.

>>4059

see now in that pic the top looks just as good as the bottom, literally the only difference is the color correction, they are otherwise entirely identical in terms of quality.

>>4056

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinematography

The digital camera used for Episode II had a resolution slightly below 1080p if I remember right.

So the OT has higher resolution than a newer prequel.

>>4066

Film doesn't exactly have a resolution being an analog medium and all. When scanning 35mm film you can generally hope to get something between 1080p and 4k digital resolution wise, depending on the camera and lens that were used and how much grain you can stomach.

>>4067

They shot the prequels on 4k cameras using RAW image. The so-called 'resolution' is very much like 35mm film stock, but in digital form. The RAW image isn't like a jpeg or some other rendered version of an image, it contains much more information about what the sensor captured that what can be displayed at any given time (on your computer or as projected). It's a huge amount of data, and more like a spectrum.

So the color grading they did to 'enhance' the prequels didn't improve the quality of the image, aside from stylistically.

There are 3 things that ultimately effect that RAW image:

1) focus

2) shutter speed

3) apature

One the image is recorded, these 3 things are set in stone. Everything else that can be done is essentially stylistic grading choices.

>>4068

Just to add - the stylistic grading options on a RAW image blows the hell out of your typical video recording. You can tweak a video recording, but when you're working with RAW you can pull out amazing color depth that is actually real, as real as what film stock captures (except you can't touch it).

>>4068

>>4069

Everything I can find about the camera used to film Episode II says it only captured 1080p with a 4:2:2 colorspace.

I also think you are somewhat misunderstanding how RAW formats work, it is just unprocessed data from the camera's image sensor. I've worked with RAW image files before in photo editing and I'm pretty sure the resolution is set in stone. Of course I might be wrong, and I'm sure whatever tools and programs they have for editing RAW stuff on a big budget movie blows anything consumer level out of the water.

>>4063

You know it could have worked. I mean the colours in an entirely different movie. By a different director. In a different scenario. With %80 different cast.

>>4074

I'm not a pro photographer but I own a Red One 4k movie camera. I remember having to argue with a First AC who wanted to change the ISO setting for each shot, and trying to tell him how the ISO doesn't effect the RAW image and not to fucking touch it because it will create headaches in post production.

Anyway, when Phantom Menace came out, Rick McCallum was campaigning to get theaters to install 4k projectors since they shot SW at 4k. I'll see if I can find a video of him talking about it.

As most modern 35mm digital cameras have the option to shoot in RAW, it's really the same with the Red camera except it captures frame by frame. The Red's sensor is 12 mega pixels to achieve 4k, but that can be dropped down to 1k or 2k.

I'm not an expert on the RAW image, my understanding comes from learning how to use the Red and then sitting through post production and listening to those guys. There's so much to learn and it kinda makes my head spin.

>>4074

I'm mistaken. You're right. It was actually AOC and it was 1080p they shot at. That's when McCallum was going around trying to get *2*k projectors into theaters, not 4k. It was so long ago I lumped it all together with 4k. Sorry bout that.