Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews » Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 02-14-2012 11:26 PM

Just curious... How hard would it have been to release this with the 9.1 (SDDS 8 and ES/EX) soundtrack from the original release? Could anyone have played it that way? Could any system have handled it?

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 02-15-2012 04:31 AM

You just need to see it in a proper theatre with proper projectionists that still give a shit...

From me in the Feature Info forum:

>>Fox Fanfare is recorded WAY too soft as is the opening theme.

I'm running the Fox Fanfare on 9.0, dropping back to 8.0 for the opening title and crawl and going down to 7.0 for the rest of the feature at the end of the crawl just before the spaceship comes on screen. Works well. <<

BTW, trailers run on 4.0 and the Dolby tag goes through at 6.0

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 02-15-2012 09:30 AM

Sorry, John. I meant 9.1 channels.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

posted 02-16-2012 02:32 PM

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Just curious... How hard would it have been to release this with the 9.1 (SDDS 8 and ES/EX) soundtrack from the original release? Could anyone have played it that way? Could any system have handled it?

hmmm, five front goodness would have been cool.

Saw this over on the ETX screen at Tysons and wasn't disappointed - the brightness level was excellent and the sound was top notch. However the 3D was so inconsistent I just phased it out of my mind a quarter of the way through it. The only problem I had with the image is the same way I thought of the bluray, it has a softness that is inherit to the original 35mm photography.

| IP: Logged

Victor Liorentas
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 800
From: london ontario canada
Registered: May 2009

posted 02-16-2012 02:38 PM

IT always was the worst looking of the 6 films.
I mean once it came out it took that position and kept it.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 02-16-2012 05:46 PM

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
it has a softness that is inherit to the original 35mm photography.

Yes, because 35mm photography is known for its extreme low resolution. Actually, Lucas softened/muddied up the image for the Blu-ray and this release to make it look more consistent with the two movies that follow which were shot on video.

| IP: Logged

Aaron Garman
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1470
From: Toledo, OH USA
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 02-16-2012 06:49 PM

In regards to the sound...

I'm pretty decided it's a problem with however they did the DCP, because if it is the same mix as the Blu-ray, it simply does not have that problem.

In regards to the image...

There were a few shots that looked nice, crisp, and 35mm. Most of the feature, however, looks like upscaled shit.

I'd love to see one of the original 35mm prints and how it compares.

AJG

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 02-16-2012 06:53 PM

I think the original looked a little soft. And it's probably even softer still being artificially converted to 3D. SW: EP 1 was shot using Arri cameras fitted with Hawk anamorphic lenses. Why Lucas chose to do this, I don't know.

Generally, movies shot in the anamorphic 35mm process generally turn out much better when shot using Panavision cameras and lenses. Panavision has built their film cameras with the anamorphic process in mind. I read somewhere that Arri changed their viewfinder design to copy what Panavision has been doing for a long time. Panavision has a larger variety of anamorphic lenses, including a number of custom one-off lenses. A cinematographer can test and cherry-pick a series of lenses that are going to deliver the best results.

I don't know much about Hawk anamorphic lenses, but I can guess they don't have the variety or match up with various camera systems as well as Panavision. If they did, I would see far more film credits attributed to Hawk. Yeah, Panavision does have the big recognizable name. But Arri is pretty recognizable too, although it's a little more complicated to say "filmed with Arri cameras and Hawk anamorphic lenses" than "filmed in Panavision."

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 02-16-2012 08:29 PM

I don't think the camera makes that much of a difference, I have been on set with an Pana/Arriflex 35 mm camera set up, the noticable difference is that the Arriflex is converted to run on 24 volts rather than the German factory 12v. Obviously Panavision lenses were used as the whole rig was suppied by Panavision.

I was talking several months ago to the Kodak rep who worked on the Star Wars films. The reason the prints looked soft on 35mm was because Lucus wasted a generation. Instead of making several DI out negatives and making the prints from them. Lucas decided use 1 DI and make internegs from that to make the prints. A cheaper option but no wonder the early version of Digital Cinema looked ok in comparison.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-25-2012 11:14 PM

I'm in total agreement with John Wilson about the Fox fanfare and the opening crawl. We are running the Scrat thing at 4.0 because it's a trailer and we run all our trailers at 4.0, then up to 8.0 for the fanfare/opening crawl, then to 7.2 for the actual movie.

It bugs me that there is less than a second between the end of Scrat and the fanfare. There should be four or five seconds of black.

I think I might have watched Episode I when it was new, but don't remember much about it. Tonight I watched the pod race sequence because I'd read somewhere that Lucas took a lot of ideas from the Ben-Hur chariot race for the sequence. I could really see that influence in a lot of places. The 3-D was OK but I enjoyed listening to the sound a lot more than watching the picture. Cool sound mix. If the whole movie was as good as this sequence then they'd have really had something.

The acting by some people in the movie (especially the kid and the black dude) is so bad I could tell even with the office door closed.

I agree with others that the picture looks kind of soft in this.

| 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.