Im not really sure where to post this but oh well. Kinda dumb question as well, bear with me.

When they say that star wars was shot using 1080p cameras what does this mean? A 1080p projector has 1080 lines of resolution but in a 16x9 format. So when watching 2.35:1 content on it you only get....817 vertical pixels displaying anything. Was star wars shot having 1080 lines of vertical resolution, or 817? I hope that makes sense...

Yes.

All of the live action material was shot in 24p mode which technically is 1920x1080 in 16x9. But 90% of the movie is CGI so they're simply using the blue screen material to lay over their CG environments. The end product is finished with 2.35 matte.

Star wars was shot using flim, and is most likely 5 times the resolution of 1080p. And yes on 1080p content you are only seeing 817 vertical pixels.

Star wars was shot using flim, and is most likely 5 times the resolution of 1080p. And yes on 1080p content you are only seeing 817 vertical pixels.

He's talking about the last two Star Wars movies (eps. 2 & 3), which were originated on 1080p video. And, yes, 817x1920 is all they're ever gonna have.

While there's much to be said for the quick turn-around of video (post-effects depts. can start working on final plates earlier, etc.), I think Lucas could've gotten 90% of the same result with a much nicer negative if he'd put the investment into an on-site lab/telecine set-up.

Shoot film.

Use video assist to watch instant dailies and know when you've got the coverage you want.

Process the negative and give it a 4k scan. Treat that 4k as your "digital negative".

Might take 72 hours to get the materials to the effects dept., but you've got a negative with film colour-depth and about 8x the resolution.

/blather

Shoot film.

Use video assist to watch instant dailies and know when you've got the coverage you want.

Process the negative and give it a 4k scan. Treat that 4k as your "digital negative".

Might take 72 hours to get the materials to the effects dept., but you've got a negative with film colour-depth and about 8x the resolution.This seems to be yet another case of history repeating itself. Back in the early sixties, when the first video tape systems were coming into use, they were hailed for their quick turn-around and editing capabilities. Nobody ever thought in terms of posterity. We should know better now, but it seems that digital studios are following this same technologically short-sighted road.

David Gilmour once said in an interview that he regretted the decision to tape the late-eighties concerts for "The Delicate Sound of Thunder" instead of shooting them on film... and he was only talking about the DVD. What a tragic realization... the thought of Pink Floyd in HD... could you imagine?

While there's much to be said for the quick turn-around of video (post-effects depts. can start working on final plates earlier, etc.), I think Lucas could've gotten 90% of the same result with a much nicer negative if he'd put the investment into an on-site lab/telecine set-up.



Might take 72 hours to get the materials to the effects dept., but you've got a negative with film colour-depth and about 8x the resolution.

/blather

ILM are well able to scan 35mm film . Its not even that big a deal these days. The supposed speed improvement from shooting digitally isn't really relevant when you factor in the delays incurred by selecting takes by editorial. You can have film rolls processed and scanned in under 24 hours. It will usually take somone in editorial that long to sort out what they actually want to hand off to the VFX department.

Most effects work is undertaken at 2k (2048x1556 for a fullap 35mm film frame). resolution wise thats not much greater than 1080p. The digital material shot for the star wars films was I seem to recall mostly 10bit non linearly encoded video with some headroom capability (probably not as much as film though). So a little bit different from 8bit bog standard video. They played with their curves.

I tend to agree with you , I've not seen a digital capture system thats as capable as film over as wide a range of imagery.