So this might be the most esoteric thing I've ever posted on the internet, but here it goes. Since I started studying cinema I've been kind of obsessed with the industry shift from film to digital. Many people say they can't tell the difference, but I've always been able to, especially in the Star Wars films, where you have 4 film movies followed up by two of the earliest blockbusters to ever be shot on the digital format. I love, love, love the look of good film cinematography, especially for franchises like Star Wars. There's something about the grain and the contrast that makes things a little more inherently romantic than what we've seen from most movies shot on digital (though it needs to mentioned that a few users on these boards have written some excellent defenses of the digital "look").There's never been a clearer example of that, in my opinion, than Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. The two are so, so visually distant at a photographic level. In an attempt to close that gap, I used a photo editing tool that specializes in creating filmic images to try and emulate the look of film in AOTC and ROTS. I want to be very clear: I'm not under the illusion that these changes are improvements on the original movies. Some of the transformations you'll see below are ones that I personally think look better, but some of them don't and all of them are up to debate. Certainly George Lucas and David Tatersall were happy with what they achieved in the original images, but nevertheless its fun to speculate on a prequel trilogy more consistent with the photographic sensibilities of Phantom Menace. My adjustments are far from perfect; I did this all on my phone, and beyond that you need to take into account that no amount of editing would change some of the differences that arrived in the shift from film to digital; its mentioned briefly in the BTS material of AOTC that much of the camera placement in that film was effected by the fact that they were using experimental and very heavy digital cameras that had never been used before. But with all that being said, here's a few things to look out for: -The absence of the "soap opera effect" typically noticed in AOTC and parts of ROTS. -Differences in contrast -In some examples, the addition of film grain subtly makes the composition of various effects elements a little more seamless. Here's the link to the full gallery: http://imgur.com/a/X6yjM And here's a few of my favorites:
I love film. As much hate as TPM receives, that's definitely something they did right. The other two prequels were shot in 1080p right? They'll never have a better resolution than that. Not very forward thinking.
Very nice. It does seem to take a lot of the "video game" feel away from the images. TPM did look nice, and I still think film is better than digital any day.
What effect is that? Soap operas are usually shot on an higher framerate, something almost exclusive to the genre. I suppose that's not what you mean, since all six movies were shot with 24fps. Also, what 'photographic sensibilities' are so inconsistent from TPM to AotC? What in those pictures feels like a video game? The absence of grain...?!
I like the look of film, but I've gotta say I seem to instinctively prefer the originals. Maybe I'm biased because I know which is which, or maybe it's because of the way they ended up being displayed on my computer. But that's my feeling at the moment. I like the "smoothness" of digital. Grain has its place, but I don't understand how people can think it makes things look more realistic. Real life doesn't have film grain. I'm pretty sure they were limited in some ways by then-current technological considerations, and chose to go 1080p because it's a high enough resolution that any perceptible deficiencies really aren't a big deal at all. Being brave enough to be early adopters of digital technology despite its early limitations is the very epitome of "forward thinking." And by promoting the use of digital film on such high-profile productions, they were helping to open up the filmmaking process to more people--a worthy goal, I should think.
They used a grain filter on ROTS to make it look more like film I believe. That to me is an admission that Lucas and co thought AOTC's digital didn't look very good.
So, Han Burgundy, which ones are your edits? The first of each frames, or the second? Though I am able to discern slight differences, I am unable to tell which ones are digital and which ones are film.
The second is mine, Empress Shatterpoint . If anyone was curious, the app I used was VSCOCam, so you can experiment for yourself. As you can tell, once I started I got kind of addicted
The Film/Digital Difference! Taste the rainbow! Wait -- what? Good work on those captures. Marvellous frames there. Seagoat, to be simple about it, the "film" versions that Han Burgundy has fashioned exhibit slightly deeper black levels (dark areas), richer mid-tones (skin/hair tones), and appear to have had a bit of grain added. They look a bit more "punched up", with a slightly rough-hewn texture, compared to the milky, waxy look of the digital originals. I'll subjectively add that the difference between the two is more noticeable in some of the other frames in Han Burgundy's gallery link. The bottom ones, the "film" ones, do look a bit more intense, to me. And it makes me wonder: if Lucas had never let on that he shot AOTC and ROTS with digital cameras (assuming he was extremely sly with behind-the-scenes material -- not that he could have been, necessarily, but as a thought experiment...), would people have ever known that no film was used in the making of those movies, had he attempted to process them like Han Burgundy has done? Personally, I think that AOTC and ROTS have a great look, and that some of this is down to those movies, in my opinion, having something of a diffused, grungy texture. In other words, Lucas deliberately didn't go for the sharpest, most hyper-realistic look possible, but used filters and gels to make objects and actors in the visual field look a bit soft and untouchable. Rove through the image galleries for the films on IMDb and you might see what I mean. The films have a slightly fantastical, old-time romantic look -- they're limited by technology and further constrained, or sweetened, by purposeful aesthetic choices made during their production (and post-production). If you want a more visceral demonstration of how AOTC and ROTS maintain a filmic quality (despite still-clear differences), compare them to this trailer for Michael Mann's 2009 feature "Public Enemies" -- a film shot with the same camera as the one used on ROTS: Hard to believe it's the same camera, isn't it? (BTW, that's not a pop at Michael Mann's movie. It's a very good film, IMO). I do think, though, that in the case of AOTC, and to a much lesser degree, ROTS, the imagery can appear a bit too waxy or woozy at times -- mind you, that also adds to the inherent weirdness of AOTC, which emerges as the least "obvious" Star Wars movie, in my view. And what digital (or early digital) can't (or couldn't) do is convincing shallow-focus shots. It is very noticeable in AOTC that Lucas frames the movie in a bigger way, emphasizing high depth-of-field (seeing into the background), in part because he was limited in the lenses that were available for the new cameras. In ROTS, they were more ambitious, and more shallow-focus shots were attempted (often in post-production by isolating foreground and background elements and using blur/defocusing effects). If you watch TPM, you'll note that some shots are quite shallow-focused, and even slightly out-of-focus, but that gives them a nice softness (an early close-up of Panaka comes to mind -- right after the Jedi rescue Amidala and her entourage from those battle droids). Digital has its limits. Two other problems, especially on AOTC, were over-exposure (they had to be careful not to let too much light in, which also constrains focal planes; which are determined, in large part, by the size of the aperture, or f-stop), because digital doesn't capture as much detail in whites (bright parts), and you get a colour-banding effect (instead of smooth transitions between similar tones/shades, you get sharp changes, or bands). Then there was the problem of strobing: fast-moving elements tended to leave a ghosting effect. So Lucas had to be careful with any action happening perpendicular to the lens not to move the camera too much. Oh, and, because of the recorders used, some colour compression was applied to the captured video data, further reducing colour information in each frame (and making it a bit more difficult on ILM when trying to extract characters, especially actors' hairlines, against bluescreen). But all those problems just outlined were not insurmountable. And Lucas' framing, lighting choices, and use of colour are all extraordinary, in this fan's opinion. In fact, going through your gallery, Han Burgundy..... WOW! AOTC is such a visually-impactful movie ........... just beautiful!!! Call me crazy, but I also think digital cinematography, aside from its envelope-pushing qualities at the time, plain suits Lucas' sensibilities -- especially in Star Wars. Take the focus issue I mentioned above. The Star Wars movies thrive on deep focus (seeing into the background). Compare them, for a modern example, to the films of Chris Nolan. That man likes constantly freezing out the background of shots so you can't really read much into them. Sure, you get SOME shots from Nolan that are significantly more generous, but Lucas is much more intent on using a more classical stylization and allowing you to see more stuff in focus more of the time. Seriously, put on "Batman Begins", and watch ROTS side-by-side with it (or watch one after the other). Aesthetically, over-reliance on shallow-focus could be considered a cheat, removing many of the pleasures of appreciating not only set design, but also important composition aids, weird pictorial details, geometric patterns, asymmetrical patterning, and the like. Early adoption of digital for Star Wars is a solid, respectable, sensible choice. I have to admit, however, that I'm one that prefers the coarseness of film, by and large. The best-looking celluloid movies haven't been surpassed (or equalled) by digital yet, in my personal reckoning. Look at say, "The Wrestler", or an earlier Mickey Rourke movie (I was just watching this one the other day), "Barfly". Film has very soft, subtle shading that digital can't really equal. It is infinitely romantic. THAT SAID..... I still like AOTC and ROTS a whole lot. They have many visually-intriguing aspects of their own. Both are very impressive "roll-out" projects for digital cinematography. And, despite what I just said, to be perfectly frank, it is hard for me to imagine ROTS looking better than it does. Even with newer, higher-resolution cameras now available. There's just something about the way everything came together on Sith. It looks bloody fantastic! Perhaps I'm also a luddite in some ways (though, we're all forward-thinking and regressive, in our own ways). In this regard, I can't help thinking that AOTC and ROTS are better for not being too sharp, too modern. They're no longer on the bleeding edge. "The Hobbit" movies -- in pristine 5K -- look a lot less sumptuous to me. I think you can have too much of a good thing. The more limited resolution of AOTC and ROTS provides a degree of romantic remove. And a lot of movies shot on film look........... merely average, IMO. So the medium is not that important if the aesthetics aren't right. Half the time, I'm like, "This was shot on film? Whatever." But when film works, it really works. The prequels are actually the most impressive digitally-shot films I've ever seen. Outside of those, I prefer digital tone poems/clips on YouTube to what Hollywood churns out, frankly. I actually think digital looks more concrete and "real" (whatever real actually is). Film tends to look rougher, and hence, less manipulated. It has more the flicker and imprecision of reality: a romantic filtering of reality. Digital, by and large, is more "matter of fact", and I think that's what throws people at times. It should be added that digital sensors are much closer to the way our eyes work (electrical impulses). Again, however, Lucas actually worked to get some filmic roughness into his digital images, allowing AOTC and ROTS to blend somewhat with the other episodes, blunting the precision of digital. Also, on AOTC, he was dealing with a more primitive camera and capture system, including beta lenses (which introduced softness). There is still a slightly "soupy" look to AOTC and ROTS, basically (as far as I can see). If you dial up the brightness, or play around with colour curves in a paint program, this much becomes more obvious, in my opinion. Romance is built into Star Wars. There may be some truth in that. But a more neutral way of saying it is simply that Lucas wanted a different look for his final prequel episode -- working WITH the technology and AROUND it. AOTC has one look, ROTS another. Apples and oranges.
Great analysis, Cryogenic . I think you really hit it on the head. I remember when Attack of the Clones came out, although I was too young to know about digital vs film, I do remember it looked different than anything else in theaters at the time. It felt special, unique. Interestingly, I think the tables have pretty much turned in 2015, and I think EPVII is going to feel pretty unique when it comes out just because most blockbusters are now shot digitally.
Very interesting point of discussion. First, to acknowledge biases, many people may prefer one over the other because it is associated with their preferred trilogy. On your re-shading, I'd say it's about half-and-half. It looks epic on scenes with a more contemplative ambience, such as the Jedi Temple/Council Room scenes. The deeper shades really capture the mood of the scene. However, scenes with a lighter mood and photography seem to have a little too much contrast between the shades and the backlight. Overall, I think it mostly comes down to environment. I think the digital photography works on exciting scenes, but the shade definitely captures the more mysterious mood of aforementioned scenes.
The Phantom Menace was filmed on film with much higher resolution that can be seamlessly converted to any format now or in the future. Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith were shot digital at much lower resolution. They will never have a higher resolution than what they were shot at and consequently become dated extremely fast.
The Phantom Menace Bluray had some aggressive DNR done on it that really hurt the look of the picture. I'm not sure if they ran AOTC and ROTS through the same process but I think they did. This shot of C3PO looks like it got hit by it, particularly his head, it looks CG but I 'm pretty sure it wasn't and this is a result of DNR.
True, but both Episodes II and III (especially the latter) have such a clear resolution that they will both be up-scaled to 4K with little to no difficulty. And RotS on Blu-ray isn't yet quite as good as it can look, because the format doesn't support 4:4:4 RGB in which the movie was shot (see this and this for more info), but only 4:2:0. But we aren't likely to see it beyond 4K, the same goes for 35 mm film (though many films today are being scanned at 8K, they are then almost always downscaled to 4K). So 4K will probably be the final step for all six SW films, I believe. Unless they figure out some new technique of preserving image quality when upscaling. As for my personal taste, I don't really prefer either film or digital. Both work well if done right. The Originals are absolutely brilliant and I haven't seen a better looking movie from that era. Though the films have heavy grain and not a very clear image in certain scenes, 90% of it is still up there with today's releases. The prequels have some problems of their own, particularly the heavy Digital Noise Reduction in TPM and AotC looks waxy and too washed out in many scenes, but on the other hand, I think RotS is the best looking movie in my collection. The vivid color and pristine resolution (especially evident in facial close-ups) of the picture is right up there when it comes to Blu-ray releases. One more thing to add. I prefer film with movies such as The Lord of the Rings. Sci-fi is where I think digital is most at home. But not sci-fi fantasy as it was in the OT where digital simply wouldn't work as well as film did. Film added to the ruggedness of the universe, even in TPM to an extent, whereas AotC and RotS portrayed and showed us a different side where digital really worked in my view.
I used to think that too, but on a closer look it seems the 'grain' we see is more likely to be image noise. As for DNR, I believe AotC got the worse of it. TPM had DNR applied for the 3D conversion, but it didn't affect gradients and it seems to have been carefully applied. AotC not only got DNR over an already soft image, but got a teal filter applied all over it. Gradient lights become a colored blot, the original color is gone, etc... Can't stand it. The original 2002 DVD release is my preferred source for watching the movie. Same here. It's like saying what lenses are better to use. That's up to the director to decide, one is not better than the other. It depends of the purpose.
The teal filter did a lot of harm to the image. HDTV version looks a lot better, shame how badly they screwed up AOTC on Bluray.
I just watch the movie. So when actually watching the movies I would never notice a difference between a movie shot in digital or a movie shot in film. However, in a still format like you have done above I see a clear difference and love the look of the digital more because it is a better quality picture. With that said I never get hung up on CGI, acting, or dialogue too much either. Those things have to be really really....really, bad for me to notice, and not just in Star Wars, but any movie. I mean Sharknado bad.... I get more locked into the story than I do with critiquing acting etc etc...
