Saga Image problems on the PT digial movies

Ok Episode 1 was shot using 35mm film and it has a nice sharp image.


We roll onto the Digital clarity of Episode 2 with no film grain.
However instead of getting the benefit of this new formant Lucas decides to make a soft picture
instead of having the picture too harsh?


Episode 3 we get a much sharper picture but a horrible looking false nasty grain is added?


The whole point of shooting a movie digitally is to have a sharp clean picture with no noise?

What was the point of shooting two of the movies in this new format and sabotaging the picture quality?

 

I think the film grain filter looks fantastic.

I'd usually support film over digital anytime, but ROTS had so much greenscreen that digital was the better choice IMO. And GL fortunately wanted to keep the look of film. Maybe it looks so bad to you if you have the contrast and sharpness all the way up on your TV. I saw Super 8 on a friend's TV with "dynamic" settings, and the grain looked horrible. But not so on my TV with calibrated settings.

 

I suppose it is a matter of taste.

As regards settings I have them just how I like them and I am very fussy about them.

Grain is natural on Film like smoke is natural from a steam engine.

For me adding grain to a digital movie is like putting a smoke stack on a Maglev Train.

 

I think GL, more than for the "clean" look, started using digital because it was easier. Digital cameras in 2000 were no where near as good as the cameras we have now, and even those still aren't as good as film. His style of directing became sitting in a chair watching three-ten angles on HD monitors on a greenscreen stage, and again, it was a lot better for his workflow when over 50% of Episode III was CGI. But he wanted to keep the look of 35mm film. The film grain, in my opinion, helps makes the visuals look a little more realistic.

[image=http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/1665/lucasdigital.jpg]

Also, digital isn't necessarily very clean. Here's a comparison of 35mm film footage compared with video from a RED Epic camera, one of the best in the industry.

 

The digital image looks bad there.

 

I believe it's meant to be ungraded and can be made to look more detailed and "film-like" with appropriate post-processing. That said, I generally prefer the romantic richness and twinkle of film, myself. There are exceptions. Over time, I have grown to really like the digital look of the prequels, especially AOTC. In fact, despite the "RED Epic" being a more advanced, higher-resolution camera, I am not so fond of the way it appears to handle colours. Maybe it's just my imagination, but flesh tones look a little off, and colours just don't seem to have the punch and clarity of SONY's CineAlta range (incidentally, the SONY cameras cost a *lot* more). Or maybe I'm just a sucker for very colourful digital films, which might explain why I prefer the palettes of, say, "Attack of the Clones" and "Speed Racer" over the likes of "Revenge of the Sith" and "Sin City".

 

I love the clean image on those CGI digital cartoons.

Attack of the Clones has a super clean image but it was made blur???

I am well aware that 35mm film has a much higher resolution then any digital format.

For me watching on a 47inch screen I would not be able to detect anything better then 1080P with my eyes.

Film has many advantages but in m opinion grain is not one of them.

If the image is digital to start with we don't need grain.

 

I like clean and dirty. Depends on the film.

*cough*

That, er, has multiple meanings, doesn't it?

Certain gels and filters were used to soften the image as it was captured through the lens/camera.

GL didn't want too much of a sharp look; he apparently wanted to emulate some of the softness of film.

Think of the fog in AOTC's opening scene. Things are smooth and sharp, yet they are also being seen through a haze. It's a bit of a contradiction, but I think it works.

It depends what you mean by "resolution". In terms of raw spatial resolution, modern digital formats are superior to 35mm film. In terms of exposure range and black density, film is still generally regarded as better; though I might be off-base with current thinking there.

Well, it's largely a subjective matter, I suppose. Personally, I think I would, if the screen itself offered more than 1080p resolution. I say this based on prior experience with lower-res formats on higher-resolution computer monitors (considerably smaller than 47 inches) over the years. With a sufficiently good display, at a tight distance, one may always yearn for more picture detail, I think.

The granularity of film is innate to the medium. In other words, film grain *is* the image, in essence. I see where you're coming from, but to disparage film grain is also to disparage film, more or less. Film's coarse, sandy texture -- yet, ironically, one that also yields a soft, romantic picture -- is fundamental to its look and feel.

That's sort of like saying we don't need classic film aspect ratios, or film cadences (the cameras delivered to Lucas for AOTC originally ran at 30fps, but GL demanded the classic 24fps; and the RED Epic shoots at 48fps -- which Lucas is now backing, incidentally), or film-like colour gradings, etc. The addition of digital grain is acknowledging the legacy of still and motion-picture imagery; and might be more aesthetically pleasing in that it helps to suggest more detail (of a fashion). Sort of like opting to shoot (or process captured images) in black-and-white. Again, I see where you're coming from, but there are no set rules. I usually eschew grain in my digital images, but some of them -- in my opinion -- actually look better for having some.

 

This is debatable. The highest resolution digital cameras in use, the RED cameras, currently just go up to 5K, while I would argue that 35mm film can go up to 8k. Of course, 8k RED cameras may be coming soon.

Absolutely.

It looks a lot better than red and green digital noise, at least.

 

Digital movies will only get better the image quality not the movies lol.

 

I suppose it is. Some industry pundits and techno-philes say that 35mm only really translates into about 3.5 K of "real" resolution. 5K, then, would well exceed what 35mm is capable of. But others would say small improvements in resolution can still be found by going up to 8K; and at the least, you're preserving "grain structure" by doing so. And then others would say it really depends on the film stock. The highest-quality 35mm yields considerably more detail than the lowest; and modern stocks are dramatically better than older ones. And then there are the atoms in any physical thing to consider. Years from now, it may well be possible to scan film stock at the atomic level. So, really, where does it end?

Yeah. Chroma and thermal noise is a particularly displeasing sight to the eyes, I'd say. I think the grainy look of film more closely resembles the granulated look of a painting up close. It has a certain naturalness and uniformity. Yet, ironically, digital sensors more closely resemble the way the human retina works. In large part, then, it remains subjective as to which format, and which set of visual artifacts, are preferable in any given situation.

 

Just a couple of points on this comparison video, which was actually shot at the film school I attended at the time when I attended.

First, the footage is from a RED One, not a RED Epic. The Epic is a newer version of the RED and the one being used on "The Hobbit."

Second, that is not the best video comparison. The purpose of that test is strictly to demonstrate the strobing effect. Notice that for each flash of light, the RED camera only picks up half. That is because it is, in the end of the day, video.

Having used and shot on RED, I have to say that it is quite versatile. While digital cinema may never exactly replicate the look of film, it can get really close. I can only imagine that future advancements will take us even closer to a film look.

 

Thanks for the clarification and extra info. I wasn't able to consciously pick up on the strobing problem before. The fact that my computer belongs in the Stone Age probably has something to do with it (very slow on YouTube these days; and YouTube videos, of late, played through a web browser, have become increasingly choppy). In any case, I downloaded the clip and just played it at 1/4 speed in VLC Media Player, and the issue is very obvious.

 

EII looked a little "video-y" to me on Blu but EIII looked 99% eye-meltingly gorgeous.