Hmmm I guess maybe...

 

It's pretty clear that Disney is shying away from many aspects of the prequels in their most mainstream and high-profile media products. They're also including aspects of them in products that are less make-or-break for them and are targeted to appeal to a more niche part of the fanbase. It's all part of a business strategy.

 

Except they aren't in the movies and those are the most mainstream and high-profile you can get.

Now are they highlighting that this is from the prequels? No but it still is so not highlighting that it is comes from marketing like the misinformation about "practical effects".

 

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure these are the same actor:





And the Darth Sidious name-drop in TLJ. People need to quit with the conspiracy theories. It’s getting tiresome and is clearly 100% wrong, as has been proven by two of the three new films released thus far. Also, you see three Twi'leks in RO and at least one will be seen in Solo, as it was spotted in the first trailer.

 

People here have said of "mostly" and "many aspects" and you refut with barely an handful of examples that consist of two cameos and a name drop? Hardly proof of anything but a complete absence, which nobody ever said.

 

To speak in the broadest, most descriptive terms, the viewing experience gained from a proper all-things 4K presentation -- quality brand disc-player, large TV, sound system, HDMI and fiber optic feed -- is one that best replicates a distinctly theatrical look, quality, feel, what-have-you. I'm not talking about the actual multiplex screen size, of course, but how the image itself is redefined apart from both prior home formats and current streaming (even 4K streaming) regarding light, color, contrast, motion, strobing along with textural/granular elements in fidelity to whatever source-inherent cinematography process. Such even occurs when watching a standard Blu-ray on a 4K setup: the movie feels nearly projected in its aura, sans any negatives of watching an actual projection—a 4K disc only making it that much more effective. Side note: this effect is more noticeable when sitting a reasonable distance away from the screen instead of close up, as may be the impulse.

I don't know how much more image resolute or upscaled the prequels can get beyond how they were natively shot (or if at all), but assuming their eventual transfer will be handled with the ideal technical professionalism, one can at least expect results that likewise evoke the sensation of seeing them as they were, as they are, in all their original theatrical glory.

Honestly, that's all the really matters to me.

-

 

Why would one use fiber optic and HDMI?

 

How else dose one connect their disc-player to their TV and sound system?

 

HDMI does the video and audio. I connect HDMI from my 4K Blu Ray player to my receiver. Done.

 

Fiber optic is just a higher quality audio feed, is my point.

 

Higher than HDMI? Or just higher than analog?

 

Yeah, it's not of higher quality than HDMI. But then again, not all sound systems have an HDMI port. Maybe that's the case with his system.

 

I stand corrected. I thought fiber optic offered slightly more audio information than HDMI, when it fact it's slightly less.

 

In fact, my 4K player has two HDMI outputs, a main one and a second for audio only. I have the main one go to my TV for video and the second one to my receiver for audio. I forgot about this until just now! Previously, I just had HDMI go to my receiver because it does HDMI switching, but with 4K it's too old and doesn't switch the higher resolution.

 

Would this happen soon? Or would they wait and release all 9 saga films in one boxset?

 

That's a good question. Disney has begun releasing films on 4k Blu Ray, but I think the Marvel films are a good way to gauge and I think they've only done new releases on 4k. I don't think they've gone back to do any previously released Marvel films yet.

 

I would put money on it that they are going to degrade the picture quality of Phantom Menace to a degree, in order for it to mesh better with Attack of the Clones. The lower picture quality of AOTC would be too jarring if they didn't.

 

Except that ROTS is arguably the best looking Star Wars movie ever so why would they do that? It really doesn't work that way.

AOTC picture quality is only "lower" in regards to a lot of things that don't really matter when it comes to real world performance and viewing.

 

They won't do that at all.

 

They already have done it on the Phantom Menace Blu-Ray, so how can you be positive they wouldn't do it again for a potential 4k blu-ray?

 

They... degraded the picture quality on the Phantom Menace Blu Ray?

 

The Phantom Menace underwent a full restoration and got a new digital intermediate for the first time. That's the opposite of degradation. And it wasn't done to mesh with any of the movies. It was done because the movie needed it and was to be converted to 3D.

And Disney had nothing to do with it.

 

The Phantom Menace also underwent digital noise reduction (DNR). Although the Blu-ray is the highest quality home release of the film, there are moments that have a noticeable waxy look from the DNR. The DNR was done either because grain doesn't work well in 3D (because they were preparing the film for 3D at the time) or to achieve more consistency with the other two prequels (which don't have grain because they were digitally shot).

Due to the waxy look, I can't say I'm a fan of the DNR. It would've looked better if they did everything the same, but kept the grain. Because if you think about it, the only grain there would be is the fine grain from the 35mm film they shot it on. There wouldn't be any added generational grain (like in the OT days) because compositing was done digitally. So there would've been a nice consistent level of fine grain across the film. It would've looked nice and there wouldn't have been any DNR side effects.