|  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

As for the specks .... I've noticed it mostly in reel 1 ..... for a while they all looked suspiciously horizontal ... almost generated ... you don't think he ..... just to promote ..... nah.... surely he wouldn't!

Also, I guess if you just sit as a patron and immerse yourself in the sub-culture that is 'Star Wars' ... then it looks ok.... HOWEVER, as a projectionist, who else kept checking their focus again .. and again .. and again? The total lack of sufficient resolution for large screen projection is most apparent in the faces, wouldn't you agree? And could that 'fake' CGI world look great if it were rendered at a little higher res? .... Probably not! Call me old fashioned, but give me models and film any day..... For older SW fans, it just doesn't look or feel the same now, does it?

But wait, theres more...who QCed the digital tracks? If you are running DTS, you will probably be ok but for the sound on film guys watch out. SDDS faired a bit better than Dolby with only one noticable dropout in R-7. The Dolby Digital printing was just plain horrible! The film is printed with the azimuth off to between -3 and -4. The focus on the Dolby digital track is also rather low (in the 50s and 60s best focus). To add insult to injury, the trailers played wonderfully with "1s". The reader was checked against reference (measured) test film to verify it was in proper calibration (and the trailers running fine also proved the reader is working well).

It would be one thing if just one reel had a problem but nope they all did. I'd recommend DTS for this film if you have it.

Steve

PS: I did notice the "EX" effects in this one more than in EP:1
PPS: SDDS is only in 5.1

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

I agree that the reports of "brown spots" are probably seeing the "new" supplemental antipiracy code. I easily found them in "Spiderman". The original Kodak-developed CAP Code is much less visible.

Right on! "Film Done Right"!

Today, there is just no good excuse for prints getting dirty or scratched. The abrasion-resistant conductive anti-static coating on KODAK VISION Color Print Film greatly reduces the static charge that attracts and holds dirt to the film. Excellent film cleaning technology is affordable and readily available, and should be used to keep prints clean during each showing. And now some good words from Brad and others about FilmGuard...

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Anyway getting to my reply, the 4 prints I looked at tonight were a mixed batch. I have one reel 2 that has those godawful oversized CAP code marks like John Hawkinson posted pictures of about a month ago. This simply MUST be replaced!

My prints from Deluxe Toronto generally looked better than the one from Deluxe Hollywood (no big surprise), but there was a noticeable amount of negative dirt and some very odd things here and there. One reel had knicks in it every few feet. This may have been at each turn of the reel, but as Fox only delivered my 4 prints just under four hours before showtime, I didn't have much time for inspection. Another reel had bizarre clear spots, there's the big screwup with the CAP code on another and I know I am forgetting some of the other problems, but it's late and I'm tired. Overally, generally sloppy lab work with this one. Sure every print may have been a "show print", but what I saw made me say "big deal".

Also, as Steve pointed out the SDDS track is indeed quite sloppy and there were tons of dropouts in it. (I have no idea how the SRD tracks are.) DTS played without a glitch.

Regarding the image quality, the only stuff that looked really good to me were the darker scenes with light sabers flailing around. Otherwise it just looked like very good video. I think the biggest complaint was the lack of contrast in the image. Outdoor scenes "burned" clear white and the very dark scenes looked like a cheap consumer video camera with "gain" turned on (lots of grain, lots of random color in that grain). The movie is soft, soft, soft focus. I spent a good 20 minutes tweeking that focus to make sure it was absolutely as sharp as it could be, but the resolution just isn't there. Sorry George, but shooting in digital is just not ready quite yet. Of course that's only my opinion. To be fair, I did not receive one single complaint about the focus.

Come on Gary, it's time for directional dialogue to come back.

Steve

(I'd be curious if anyone has seen these on a non-Toronto print).

quote:

---

Come on Gary, it's time for directional dialogue to come back.

---

Lack of directional dialogue was the second thing I noticed. (The first was the edge jaggies on high-contrast edges.)