Star Wars Episode III at DVinfo.net

Bruce Meyers · January 5th, 2006, 05:18 PM

I heard they shot that HD, 1920 x 1080 something like that which is native 16:9, but then how did they do the 2.35:1, just cropped, lost all that resolution? We saw a cropped 2.35:1 of a total of 1920 x 1080 resolution, is this true?

Hse Kha · January 5th, 2006, 05:32 PM

I asked the same thing a while ago. The conclusion was that there was no anamorphic lenses used and so it was "cropped", i.e. the pixels at the top and bottom was not used and so the resolution was only 1920x817. Amazing quality for just 1.56 MegaPixels :)

Petr Marusek · January 5th, 2006, 05:54 PM

It was cropped. 10 bit CineAlta SR recorder and F950 camera with Fuji lenses were used.

Heath McKnight · January 6th, 2006, 12:49 PM

I'm surprised they didn't use Panavision lenses like with the F900 on Ep. 2.

heath

Ken Hodson · January 6th, 2006, 09:40 PM

Considering the majority of the film, if not all, is heavily composited, there is no real concern in the aspect ratio. Shoot the actors and then enter them into a digital set of what ever aspect ratio needed. It was probably never an issue to frame a full shot, or to put it another way, they were never limited by the resolution and aspect ratio of the cam in capturing the actors. It is not the old school of filmaking where a shot is framed and that is that. Three or four shots can make up a scene of which are combined with CG into whatever resolution/aspect ratio is required for post. The cam is now just A tool, not THE tool, from which the canvas is painted.

Mathieu Ghekiere · January 7th, 2006, 06:14 AM

I have nothing against George Lucas but his filming everything for blue screen technique really bothers me... It's like the movie has lost it's soul.
Spielberg said we would never want to make a movie completely for a blue screen because it would be pointless for him as a filmmaker.
The art would be gone.
I have nothing against special fx, and in Sin City that artificial look worked, but it was used for another reason then Lucas who just thinks he can do everything with CGI.
Just doesn't have the same feeling, if you for instance cmopare it with Once Upon A Time in America where all the sets are real...

But that's all way off topic actually.

Petr Marusek · January 7th, 2006, 05:35 PM

I loved Once upon a Time in America, but did you actually mean Once upon a Time in Mexico?

Mathieu Ghekiere · January 7th, 2006, 06:42 PM

No, I did mean In America.
Sergio Leone didn't had CGI then ;-)
And you feel it, the movie has a real authentiek (not spelled correctly I suppose) feel about it.
The shots of those old streets and stuff, with the crane shots are wonderfull, with complete real sets!

When movies just use CGI it's lost a bit. I'm not saying CGI isn't good, but it's nice if it's only used when necessary because often you still 'feel' it's CGI.

Like Spielberg said: I like to work with real sets, they give me ideas and I want to honor the craft of making something on a full scale.

Because I heard also when they were busy with miniatures for I suppose LOTR (not sure about it, but I think so), George Lucas came by and he said: you know you could do that all with CGI, don't you?
But I think even miniatures look more real then CGI often.

Adam Keen · January 7th, 2006, 08:34 PM

Somehow most of the CGI in Episode III felt really obvious.

CG R2D2 didn't seem to feel very real. C3PO is super shiny so they had to paint out stuff frame-by-frame, and they missed stuff. Some of the backgrounds weren't even well done.

By the time they were showing wookies I thought they were composited in too!

I did like the CG cape on Grievous...

Petr Marusek · January 8th, 2006, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mathieu Ghekiere

No, I did mean In America.
Sergio Leone didn't had CGI then ;-)
And you feel it, the movie has a real authentiek (not spelled correctly I suppose) feel about it.
The shots of those old streets and stuff, with the crane shots are wonderfull, with complete real sets!

When movies just use CGI it's lost a bit.

Look at the greatest art movies ever made, Visconti, Bertolluci, DeSica, Bergman, Antonioni, Zefirelli, etc. Digital effects would do nothing to improve these movies. Film is art, just like painting and music are art. Digital sffects were not needed to make the greatest film art.

Ken Hodson · January 8th, 2006, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petr Marusek

Look at the greatest art movies ever made, Visconti, Bertolluci, DeSica, Bergman, Antonioni, Zefirelli, etc. Digital effects would do nothing to improve these movies. Film is art, just like painting and music are art. Digital sffects were not needed to make the greatest film art.

While true in a sence, FX were not available to any of those directors, so it wasn't a choice for them. Lucas and his Star Wars lable, basically invented FX as we know it. Don't bash him for pushing the limits of technology. Someone had to do it. As a low budget filmaker digital techniques enable the little guy to produce previously impossible or highly expensive shots, which opens up a world of possibilities.

If you want to see FX-less Star Wars, just watch Jedi and tell me that little people stuffed into teddy bear suits, to play Ewoks, looks great. It doesn't. It looks like crap and is horribly obvious that it is a person and takes the realism out of the scenes. When it comes to FX I would rather see CG then the low tech equivalent.
To compare SW with Once upon a time in America, makes little sence to me. Two completely oposite movies. Did you want Lucas to fly to a galaxy far, far, away and film on location to get that authentic look to make you happy?

Mathieu Ghekiere · January 8th, 2006, 04:48 PM

Ken,

First I want to say I actually admire Lucas for what he has done on the expertise of special fx and sound and image.
And you are perfectly right: those director's didn't had the choice.

But in the old star Wars films, he build some sets, and they look very real, much more real then some new CGI.
And I don't bash Lucas for using CGI, I just think he uses it too much, and it looks like he never wants to use miniatures and real sets anymore, while I think they provide still an extra realism.
He looses the art with it.
Spielberg uses much CGI too, but when he can build a set, he does, and he never looses focus of the story and the characters...

And also: the actors act different when all the stuff is in front of their eyes...

Boyd Ostroff · January 8th, 2006, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Hodson

It looks like crap and is horribly obvious that it is a person and takes the realism out of the scenes.

So, if you have computer generated Ewoks then they look real? You lost me there...

Ken Hodson · January 8th, 2006, 09:11 PM

The CG characters of the last episodes look miles ahead of the old, my mouth doesn't even move little person in a teddy bear suit. No question.
Is CG the answer to everything? No it isn't. But it is the future of certain genre's if not most all filmaking to some extent. CG sets will continue to improve as will CG characters. Human actors will learn to act better on a digital set as well.

Alex Filacchione · January 9th, 2006, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Did you want Lucas to fly to a galaxy far, far, away and film on location to get that authentic look to make you happy?

:-)

I was just going to say the same thing... How do you film Star Wars "on lcation"? :-)

Seriously though, I understand what he is saying. In Ep IV they filmed the desert scenes in Tunisia, not by using CGI (Ep I as well). Often building sets has a more "organic" feel to it. Just look at the first scenes in Alien where they went into the Alien ship or whatever. They looked great because Ridley Scott built HUGE sets. Degobah in Ep. V looked great, cause the swamp was a huge set. Not only that, but I would suspect that acting on a huge set brings the story more to life for the actors than acting in front a blue screen with blue tennis balls floating around for visual cues, and hence brings out a better performance overall.

Some of the effects looked great, and some were pretty obvious, and not in a good way. Overall, my complaint with his recent movies had nothing to do with the filming... Let's hope he can write or get an even half-decent script & actors for the Indiana Jones movie. No 20 minute useless love scenes, no stiff actors that bring zero character to the screen, no sucking out any & all irreverent humor that made characters like Han Solo so great, etc.

That being said, blue screen effects *can* be artistic. I think that the "look & feel" of Sky Capt. & The World of Tomorrow, though obviously blue & green screened, was definitely artistic. Whether you liked it or not, it was artistic if nothing else.

Alex F

January 5th, 2006, 05:18 PM	#1
Bruce Meyers Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Maldives Posts: 97	Star Wars Episode III I heard they shot that HD, 1920 x 1080 something like that which is native 16:9, but then how did they do the 2.35:1, just cropped, lost all that resolution? We saw a cropped 2.35:1 of a total of 1920 x 1080 resolution, is this true?

January 6th, 2006, 12:49 PM	#4
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	I'm surprised they didn't use Panavision lenses like with the F900 on Ep. 2. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

January 6th, 2006, 09:40 PM	#5
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	Considering the majority of the film, if not all, is heavily composited, there is no real concern in the aspect ratio. Shoot the actors and then enter them into a digital set of what ever aspect ratio needed. It was probably never an issue to frame a full shot, or to put it another way, they were never limited by the resolution and aspect ratio of the cam in capturing the actors. It is not the old school of filmaking where a shot is framed and that is that. Three or four shots can make up a scene of which are combined with CG into whatever resolution/aspect ratio is required for post. The cam is now just A tool, not THE tool, from which the canvas is painted. __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

January 7th, 2006, 06:14 AM	#6
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	I have nothing against George Lucas but his filming everything for blue screen technique really bothers me... It's like the movie has lost it's soul. Spielberg said we would never want to make a movie completely for a blue screen because it would be pointless for him as a filmmaker. The art would be gone. I have nothing against special fx, and in Sin City that artificial look worked, but it was used for another reason then Lucas who just thinks he can do everything with CGI. Just doesn't have the same feeling, if you for instance cmopare it with Once Upon A Time in America where all the sets are real... But that's all way off topic actually. __________________ http://productionsofthe3rdkind.com http://pr3k.com

January 7th, 2006, 06:42 PM	#8
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	No, I did mean In America. Sergio Leone didn't had CGI then ;-) And you feel it, the movie has a real authentiek (not spelled correctly I suppose) feel about it. The shots of those old streets and stuff, with the crane shots are wonderfull, with complete real sets! When movies just use CGI it's lost a bit. I'm not saying CGI isn't good, but it's nice if it's only used when necessary because often you still 'feel' it's CGI. Like Spielberg said: I like to work with real sets, they give me ideas and I want to honor the craft of making something on a full scale. Because I heard also when they were busy with miniatures for I suppose LOTR (not sure about it, but I think so), George Lucas came by and he said: you know you could do that all with CGI, don't you? But I think even miniatures look more real then CGI often. __________________ http://productionsofthe3rdkind.com http://pr3k.com

January 5th, 2006, 05:32 PM	#2
Hse Kha Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: New England Posts: 195	I asked the same thing a while ago. The conclusion was that there was no anamorphic lenses used and so it was "cropped", i.e. the pixels at the top and bottom was not used and so the resolution was only 1920x817. Amazing quality for just 1.56 MegaPixels :)

January 5th, 2006, 05:54 PM	#3
Petr Marusek Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 155	It was cropped. 10 bit CineAlta SR recorder and F950 camera with Fuji lenses were used.

January 7th, 2006, 05:35 PM	#7
Petr Marusek Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 155	I loved Once upon a Time in America, but did you actually mean Once upon a Time in Mexico?

January 7th, 2006, 08:34 PM	#9
Adam Keen Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 49	Somehow most of the CGI in Episode III felt really obvious. CG R2D2 didn't seem to feel very real. C3PO is super shiny so they had to paint out stuff frame-by-frame, and they missed stuff. Some of the backgrounds weren't even well done. By the time they were showing wookies I thought they were composited in too! I did like the CG cape on Grievous...

January 8th, 2006, 04:48 PM	#12
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	Ken, First I want to say I actually admire Lucas for what he has done on the expertise of special fx and sound and image. And you are perfectly right: those director's didn't had the choice. But in the old star Wars films, he build some sets, and they look very real, much more real then some new CGI. And I don't bash Lucas for using CGI, I just think he uses it too much, and it looks like he never wants to use miniatures and real sets anymore, while I think they provide still an extra realism. He looses the art with it. Spielberg uses much CGI too, but when he can build a set, he does, and he never looses focus of the story and the characters... And also: the actors act different when all the stuff is in front of their eyes... __________________ http://productionsofthe3rdkind.com http://pr3k.com

January 8th, 2006, 09:11 PM	#14
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	The CG characters of the last episodes look miles ahead of the old, my mouth doesn't even move little person in a teddy bear suit. No question. Is CG the answer to everything? No it isn't. But it is the future of certain genre's if not most all filmaking to some extent. CG sets will continue to improve as will CG characters. Human actors will learn to act better on a digital set as well. __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.