Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: star wars trailer

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » star wars trailer (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: star wars trailer

Gary Martin
Film Handler

Posts: 6
From: Cornwall, England
Registered: Nov 2001

posted 11-24-2001 06:04 PM

just checked out your message board for the first time cool stuff as a working projectionist/engineer in good old blighty i have to beg plead and generally pray to even get a sniff of the star wars trailer as i work for an independant and we are not considered as important as the big multis so we just sit and wait and wait and wait
if any body fancys communicating drop a line
cheers gary

| IP: Logged

Brian Potts
Film Handler

Posts: 59
From: Lexington, North Carolina, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 11-24-2001 10:54 PM

You can see the both versions of the Star Wars trailer at www.apple.com/trailers You will need to have Quick Time player to play them.

| IP: Logged

Erich Warwell
Film Handler

Posts: 1
From: Salisbury, NC, USA
Registered: Aug 2001

posted 11-25-2001 06:15 AM

Hey, I've seen the Star Wars Episode 2 teaser and it looked good but, I've heard the newest longer version just makes it look like a love story between anakan and the princess. I havn't seen if for myself though.

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 11-25-2001 10:43 AM

Photographically speaking (if that's a real phrase)... the trailer is amazing. The compositions are great. The colors are great. It most certainly has the "film look" which digital cinema so desperately wants. In fact, when you see a trailer (normally) you're so far removed from first generation negative that it almost always looks bad. What George Lucas is doing this time allows him to, essentially, make as many "original negatives" as he wants to from which release prints can be struck. The result? The "Forbidden Love" trailer looks better than the Harry Potter movie it's attached to! And this was a digital image! I'm stunned.

So... we can argue about whether there are enough pixels in George Lucas' toy box to make this movie look as good as film. But when you consider that most release prints are at least four generations away from the original negative and trailers are even worse than that (John from Kodak may correct me if I'm mistaken) perhaps the pixel math will be moot.

| IP: Logged

Mike Heenan
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1896
From: Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 11-25-2001 11:57 AM

Of course the argument against the trailer is that it looks "cartoony" because of the CGI, and it does in my opinion. But some looks good, some of it looks awful. I hope it comes to digital in my area so I can make a comparison.

| IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 11-25-2001 12:29 PM

But will they actually make a number of "original negatives" for the film for the actual release? Or will they do a one-time negative creation and do the usual? I understand the last film had a few wetgate prints, a larger number of slow-printed and a big number of rapid speed prints made.

| IP: Logged

Richard Topping
Film Handler

Posts: 13
From: Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
Registered: May 2001

posted 11-25-2001 01:31 PM

1st time that I saw the new Star Wards trailer I thought it was a load of crap, and was concentrating too much on the love side of the story. However, after seeing it loads of times now I must say that it has grown on me a lot and my only grudge is... why not in SDDS? We don't all have SRD!

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 11-25-2001 03:35 PM

The trailers I have seen have all 3 digital formats on them.

Interesting point Greg brings up about generation loss. Hopefully Lucas will output the digital image to film (however that is done, I don't really know) many times so that ALL of the negatives are essentially "first generation" from the video original.

| IP: Logged

Ken Lackner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1907
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Registered: Sep 2001

posted 11-25-2001 03:55 PM

Why is the trailer called "Black Eyes"?

Gregg, Did anyone ever tell you that you resemble Jimmy Buffett?

| IP: Logged

Aaron Haney
Master Film Handler

Posts: 265
From: Cupertino, CA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 11-25-2001 04:45 PM

Actually, those involved in Episode II have already stated they will be bypassing the usual release print process. Here is a quote from a news story in which producer Rick McCallum talks about releasing Episode II on film:

quote:
Remember, our "negative" is on a server. We'll go straight from our server to an IN, and from the IN we go straight to release prints. So we get to bypass the original negative, the answer print, and the IP stage. We'll be releasing on film from 2,000-foot negative reels without a single splice. The level of quality that we will provide to 5,000 theatres will be unprecedented.

That's very nice, but calling the level of quality "unprecedented" is a bit over the top. I'm sure there were many prints in circulation during the heydays of 70mm 6-track that would have given it a run for its money.

Later in that article, McCallum once again pulls out the "nothing will be able to stop it" quote in reference to digital cinema. Puh-leeease. Can't we move beyond simplistic will-it-or-won't-it discussions, and have people start talking about what kind of digital cinema we're going to get? Good or bad? Pathetic 1280x1024 resolution, or something closer to that of film? A puny 1000:1 contrast ratio, or something approaching that of film? A video-ish color gamut, or something closer to that of a dye-transfer print? I'm sick of all the mindless techno-cheerleading. How about some real, in depth analysis from people like him for once?

| IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 11-25-2001 05:28 PM

Excuse me, but ALL the release prints will be made directly from one IN? If so, than why isnt that being done today? There should be no diff if a single IN came from the server or from a film negative.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 11-25-2001 07:42 PM

They don't all have to come from a single IN (nor do I think they would)...but with a digital origination...they could output as many INs as necessary to handle the release prints in a timely manner without ever wearing out an ON.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

| IP: Logged

Ken Lackner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1907
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Registered: Sep 2001

posted 11-25-2001 08:46 PM

Newbie alert! What the heck are INs and ONs!?

Die, digtital cinema, die! Long live film!

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-25-2001 09:31 PM

ON = original negative (i.e. the film that ran through the camera in a conventional non-digital shoot)
IP = interpositive (one generation away from the original negative)
IN = internegative (two generations away from original negative; made from an interpositive; used as printing elements for general release prints)
release print = the stuff that runs through the projector (includes picture and optical soundtrack) at the theatres; these are usually made from an internegative

When shooting on film, you only have one ON. When shooting electronically, the ON is what is output from the film recorder and, thus, you can have as many ONs as you want.

| IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 11-26-2001 12:04 AM

My point is, though, that there IS a cost for every IN made from the digital master. Are they willing to go to that expense to make all the IN's necessary for all those prints? I certainly HOPE they do, but if this practice is accepted by the industry for ALL digital films, cost WILL become an issue.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.