Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Star Wars Prequels Media Movies Businesses Apple

Macs Do Star Wars Dirty Work 219

Posted by CmdrTaco from the why-the-heck-not dept.
bfl writes "The BBC is running a story about Lowry Digital Images and how they used 600 dual G5s and 400 TB of storage space to clean the dirt off of the old Star Wars reels, and upgrade the resolution to get them ready for their DVD release."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Macs Do Star Wars Dirty Work More

Macs Do Star Wars Dirty Work

Comments Filter:

  • CmdrTaco Does Slashdot Dupe Work (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 24, 2004 @10:48AM (#10614177)
    378 Terabytes Of Star Wars on 600 G5s [slashdot.org]

  • Movie dirt (Score:5, Informative)

    by 2.7182 ( 819680 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @10:49AM (#10614181)
    Movie dirt is a special kind of "noise" in images, from a statistical point of view. Thus special filters can be applied.
    • Can someone elaborate on how shot noise applies to optical systems, specifically, cinematography? Since the original source material is conventional 'analog' film, at what point is the noise introduced? How is it introduced? (Yes I realize that film is not a pure analog format; the resolution being limited by the grain size of the emulsion - but at the same time, it's not what we consider digital.)

      • Re:Shot noise in optical systems (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        This is nothing new. Even without dirt, noise is present in film-sourced, HDTV-encoded content. Film grain is noise. It can be removed with a spatial-temporal filter like they use in the article. It is used in almost every XviD or similar file you can find on the net.

      • Re:Shot noise in optical systems (Score:5, Informative)

        by badasscat ( 563442 ) <basscadet75NO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Sunday October 24, 2004 @01:35PM (#10614980)
        Can someone elaborate on how shot noise applies to optical systems, specifically, cinematography? Since the original source material is conventional 'analog' film, at what point is the noise introduced? How is it introduced?

        Well, it's all explained in the article. And you've got half the answer yourself. But I'll try to explain further...

        (Yes I realize that film is not a pure analog format; the resolution being limited by the grain size of the emulsion - but at the same time, it's not what we consider digital.)

        Film grain itself is a noise component. Film grains are nothing more than crystals sensitive to a particular light wavelength. In commonly used 35mm film stocks, there are three layers of emulsion - one red, one green, one blue. Think of the grains as "pixels", although they're somewhat randomly distributed, they're not all of a uniform size, and they're not all uniformly sensitive to light. The end result is that the minute differences between adjacent grains makes them easily discernible on a theatrical-size screen, and somewhat visible on a large TV set. They appear as noise.

        Optical effects also involve compositing several layers of film on top of each other. According to the article, the light saber scenes were the worst. I'd imagine at that time, shooting a light saber duel probably involved three layers of film; the master shot and one optical shot for each light saber. Obviously this triples your noise and also softens the image. It can also introduce color casts because the light is being altered through each layer of film.

        As films age, chemical reactions also cause color shifts in the grains. This can lead to even more noise.

        Films also get just plain dirty over time. The Star Wars negatives have been handled a lot, so they're probably dirtier than most. 35mm not being very big, when you blow it up onto a theater screen or even a TV set, a small layer of dust or tiny particles of dirt will add a lot of crud to the image.

        The software they used to clean up these films apparently works by comparing each frame of film to the frame before and the frame after, to see what's picture information and what's noise (random noise will be easy for a computer to pick out, because it will not match at all from one frame to the next). It should have no problem removing both film grain and dirt, as well as other types of noise.

        I'd imagine they must have manually isolated each individual edit in the film to reduce errors, but this wouldn't have been that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. There's probably only maybe a couple thousand cuts per film (assuming a high average of 5-10 cuts per minute), so it wouldn't take more than a couple days for one person to do this.

    • Re:Movie dirt (Score:3, Funny)

      by bman08 ( 239376 )
      If only they could have made the sailbarge scene dirtier....mmmmmmm....

    • Re:Movie dirt (Score:4, Funny)

      by tonywong ( 96839 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @08:00PM (#10617091) Homepage
      Thank god that the dirt particles removed from the original prints showed Greedo firing first.

      Totally clears Han as being a bad guy.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @10:50AM (#10614190)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:This story has been around a while.. (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The real story is (from the Apple article): "...we need access to memory, because these frames are all computed while they're in RAM. Mac OS X gives us the ability to use virtual memory if necessary to swap around."

      Wow, what amazing technology!
  • Is it me or does it seem like they this cash cow is never going to run out.
    • That would be the FIRST time the Trilogy has been released legally on DVD. RTFA!

    • Re:Thats like, how many dvds now ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GerbilSocks ( 713781 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @11:01AM (#10614247)
      There's only a finite number of old films. Of those old films, most are either shoddy or have been long forgotten. Only a very small number of movies are beloved enough that studios are willing to cost out the restoration work.

      Most films shot now are digitized, or shot digitally in the first place.

      • Re:Thats like, how many dvds now ? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by magarity ( 164372 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @11:33AM (#10614379)
        Only a very small number of movies are beloved enough that studios are willing to cost out the restoration work.

        A bulk of this cost is the initial hardware outlay and creating software to do the work. Once these 600 Macs are done with SW IV-VI, it should be fairly easy and cost effective to crank plenty of other old movies through.
      • George Lucas himself can supply an infinite number of films.

        Greedo shoots's first, greedo shoots simultaneously, deleted scene jabba 1, deleted scene jabba 2, greedo first + jabba 2, greedo first + jabba 1, jar-jar on tattoine, jar-jar + greedo 1 + jabba 2, boba fett vocie 1 + jar-jar 2 + pink lightsabre + jabba 2, ad infinitum.

        • Someday you'll get a 500TB HDTVD2 that has all possible scenes and shots, and you'll select which Star Wars you'd like: Greedo gets his ass whipped, Jabba++, remove bikini, etc.

      • Re:Thats like, how many dvds now ? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by EtherAlchemist ( 789180 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @12:31PM (#10614663)

        Most films shot now are digitized, or shot digitally in the first place.

        Most films are not shot digitally, very very few films are shot digitally. Most films are still shot on film.

        I wouldn't say older films are forgotten, not at all. Almost all of the studios (the big ones at least) started sending the old, original reels to the massive underground storage facility that I believe is run by Iron Mountain. Here they are kept in controlled temps and dust free.
      • There's only a finite number of old films. Of those old films, most are either shoddy or have been long forgotten. Only a very small number of movies are beloved enough that studios are willing to cost out the restoration work.

        True, but as Lucas has demonstrated, you can take the same 3 films and rerelease them as many times as you want. So really, the cash cow will never run out.
      • There's only a finite number of old films

        That's your first mistaken assumption. Haven't you learned anything from Tupac? Old tapes never die... they just keep getting "remastered".
      • Most films shot now are digitized, or shot digitally in the first place.

        Most film is shot on film, then scanned, edited, and output back onto film. The reason is that it is very hard to shift a lot of data off the sensor in real time. The best digital cameras can move 4MP at 8FPS, that's not enough for movie making, either in speed or resolution.

        Some films are shot entirely digitally, like Collateral, and it's *obvious* in the poor quality of the low-light scenes. There's a long way to go before the qual

  • 180,000 frames (Score:4, Interesting)

    by helfen ( 791121 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @10:52AM (#10614203)
    just imagine:
    they have 180 000 frames
    1 frame = 70 MB
    use your calc folks ;)
    • How do they fit it all on a DVD?

    • Re:180,000 frames (Score:5, Informative)

      by l3v1 ( 787564 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @11:18AM (#10614318)
      To the guys with how-does-it-fit-on-a-DVD: the resolution they work with is the scanning res needed to process the cleaning on high quality. The size is the uncompressed size of th scanned frames. When putting on a DVD the resolution is highly reduced and compressed into mpeg2.

      Well, and that is not what's usually the biggest size. I participated in a project in which we cleaned up a pretty much damaged color movie from the 1950s. It was about 130000 frames, each frame was scanned into ~2K files (w/ 3 channels, 10 bit log density / channel - this res was enough for this movie, but usually higher scanning res is required). If you add that up, multiply it by a few times for storage of during-the-work duplicates for checking, quick back stepping, etc. and you end up with lotsa-lotsa hard drives.

      Then calc up how much space you would need to process all that stuff on e.g. 4 or 6K res.

  • The MACS did it! (Score:5, Funny)

    by nebenfun ( 530284 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @10:53AM (#10614206)
    The MACS made Greedo shoot first!

    • Re:The MACS did it! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Dirtside ( 91468 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @11:34AM (#10614382) Journal
      The MACS made Greedo shoot first!
      Don't laugh. Rumor has it that the Mac responsible for doing the "Greedo shoots first" changes later became clinically depressed, turned to pills and booze, and finally committed suicide.

      Lucas, you maniac! When will this abuse of innocent computers end?!

      • Overheard at the render farm.... (Score:5, Funny)

        by nebenfun ( 530284 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @11:52AM (#10614478)
        Node 23543: "What's the sickest thing you've done for cash?"

        Node 25685: "I once had to render a goat hobbit monkey sex video...I was depressed for a year!"

        Node 65423: "I had to do pitch correction on three hours of Britney Spears audio! I still find myself waking up and crying like a baby..."

        Node 27928: "Once, I had to work on a Lucas proje..."

        All of the other nodes: "Say no more! You poor bastard!"

        Unidentified node : "You whore!"
    • "The MACS made Greedo shoot first!"

      I see a new Linux commercial!

  • Don't forget the "Jedi Clause." (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sakusha ( 441986 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @10:58AM (#10614237)
    Most people don't realize, much of the primary CG work done on the Star Wars films are done on Macs. But ILM signed contracts with SGI which prohibits them from acknowledging the contribution of any system other than SGI. Inside ILM, this contractual obligation is known as "the Jedi Clause." So the contribution of Macs and Mac users to these films go largely unrecognized.

  • Overheard at a Lucas meeting (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 24, 2004 @11:05AM (#10614261)
    "Hey, you know what would be cool?"
    "What's that?"
    "These G5s are pretty cool...we should make a beowulf cluster of them!"
    "Well, we're obscenely rich, so..."
    "Yipee!"

  • I wonder if they used Film Gimp/Cinepaint (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ILM used and contribute code to Film Gimp/Cinepaint.
    ILM contribute code as a plug-in (OpenEXR). It would be interesting to know if Lowry Digital Images used Film Gimp/Cinepaint including the ILM developed OpenEXR plug-in in cleaning Star Wars.

  • Explains generation gap? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Hao Wu ( 652581 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @11:10AM (#10614287) Homepage
    This may be why Star Wars was so popular when if first came out, but when little kids and others watched it many years later in re-release or on video they were somewhat less impressed by the lesser quality film they were watching.

    Or... "Gee it was more fun the first time when I was 10!" Well, that's because it actually was a better-looking film.

    • Firstly, the sound effects made Star Wars an innovative film,(ironic that sound doesn't really travel through space) Many theaters upgraded their sound systems specifically for Star Wars. Secondly, many features of Star Wars quickly became standard in filmaking. The films the newer generation sees are all derivative. Its like listening to Robert Johnson after growing up with Led Zepplin. I respect the blues, but its not so much fun to listen to, sorta like going in a nearly empty basement of an old house.

      • Re:Star Wars generation gap? Sound Effects- (Score:4, Interesting)

        by casuist99 ( 263701 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @02:37PM (#10615299) Homepage Journal
        What Lucas did was to abandon the laws of physics in favor of entertaining the audience. True that sound won't travel through empty or very sparse space, but you could STILL have interesting sound effects. Every time something blows up, as the shock-wave passes the viewer you would expect to hear *something* in real life.

        Now, yes it's much more interesting to hear the explosion as it happens, even though in real life you'd certainly have to deal with the shock-wave carried sound or (assuming space in this far-off galaxy is full of air) a huge delay between the time you see the explosion and the time it takes for the sound of that explosion to reach you.

        The physics of movies has, i fear, spoiled the expectations of all future space travelers. Sound in outer space? Blasters? Deflector shields? And my biggest peeve: 2-D shock waves (a la praxis)? That's some FUNKY distribution of mass there.
    • I think that has happened with many films. If you saw a new print in 70mm as a kid. it is going to look much better than a current 35mm print with dirt, scratches, missing frames and faded color. Many of the old technicolor films still look great. Something about that process made it more stable.

  • Macintosh = The Industries Retarded Son (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anubis333 ( 103791 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @11:13AM (#10614296) Homepage
    I love Apple and I love the spirit of competittion, I have been a Mac user much of my life. But why are Macs always treated like the retarded child of the computer industry? Look at the guy pictured in the article; he's smiling, he's so proud 'THEY DID IT!'

    It seems like any time the Mac platform does something that is remotely interesting people rejoice and it is plastered everywhere. Would this story be on the front page if PCs were used? I doubt it, even if they were running Linux.

    It's just like this weird thing where anything, even commonplace events get blown out of porportion just because Macs were used, as if the entire platform blows and it's amazing anything gets done, which is not the case. Maybe it is just the Mac user hubris as pictured above, but it comes across as this weird feeling I mentioned earlier. Touting that the macs 'can do!' things PCs do all the time makes them seem inferior and retarded, like they need the positive reinforcement.
    • Well you see back when Mac and PC were growing up (they are brothers) PC would always be studying his math and science for school. Mac played with dolls. We discouraged this, but he'd just started kicking and screaming if we gave him a math problem. One day he found art and worked feverishly on it. It was the day of the big art show and Mac had his favorite painting on display. Unfortunately on a whim PC had decided to draw a picture the night before and it was just as good as Mac's, despite all the ef
    • It seems like any time the Mac platform does something that is remotely interesting people rejoice and it is plastered everywhere. Would this story be on the front page if PCs were used? I doubt it, even if they were running Linux.

      First, I think the same thing does happen with Linux. -and in either case, I don't think it's merely "Yea! We did something that you can do on Windows!" It's a little more like, "To all those people who say our system of choice is somehow inferior, here's some evidence to the

    • Re:Macintosh = The Industries Retarded Son (Score:4, Funny)

      by Otter ( 3800 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @12:53PM (#10614769) Journal
      Would this story be on the front page if PCs were used? I doubt it, even if they were running Linux.

      You must be new here.

    • Would this story be on the front page if PCs were used? I doubt it, even if they were running Linux.

      Sorry, you are wrong. Linux got the front page several times when Digital Domain used it to render Titanic and several other movies. Granted, it did use Alphas, but IIRC, several PC/Linux based projects were given front page treatment here.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • If you haven't seen the LD-SE-DVD comparisons (Score:4, Informative)

    by tangent3 ( 449222 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @11:15AM (#10614307)
    Check them out on the previous slashdot articles for ESB [slashdot.org] and ANH [slashdot.org]. You can compare the improvements in the image quality. It's amazing how much improvement can be made and detail added in.
    • It's amazing how much improvement can be made and detail added in.

      You can't add detail using filters. You might be a able to approximate what data might have been under a blotch but it is still a guess. Even sharpness filters generally takeaway detail, look up edge enhancement - which is basically a sharpness filter that makes an image appear sharper when it actually takes away real detail.

  • List of Movies restored by Lowry Digital (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Danathar ( 267989 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @11:29AM (#10614363) Journal
    Amazon has a list made up by Chuck Kahn of movies that have been cleaned up by Lowry.

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/listmania/l is t-browse/-/1X2DZ42QS8OVB/103-1368633-4717431

    I've picked up THX1138, Once upon a time in the west, North by Northwest, The Ghoul and of course Star Wars.

    The results are INCREDIBLE. Except for some obvious dubbing with sound, Once upon a time in the west looks like it was filmed yesterday. So does THX1138!

    I've tried finding the Lowry Digital Web site. But INCREDIBLY it seems like they don't have one! Seems strange. You would think they would have a web site telling people the films they have done so people might go out and buy them.

    If somebody knows it....PLEASE post it!
    • Sit down and think about it for a moment. Consider what the reaction would be if you decided to clean the Sphinx so it looked new, or redo some famous bridge in the latest hitech materials (let's say
      Clifton Suspension bridge in Bristol UK in *titanium* just so it lasted forever).

      Somehow, you've *lost* the original both in spirit and implementation. Somehow, you've *lost* the historical context...

      I could go on. But I won't bore you (have already he says chuckling).

      Even though Movies are in some sense "tho
      • Have you seen any of the results. Lowry has said that their job is not to IMPROVE movies but to restore them to what they were when they were released. Now I don't know how old you are, but would'nt be nice to see a film like "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly" or "Fall of the Roman Empire" that was as good as when the first print was made?

        THX1138 is the only one of the movies Lowry has done that's been "enhanced"...that's Lucas's Job. All the rest are as close to what they were when first released in the the
      • OK, let's have a though experiment. Imagine that we come to see Sphinx and I climb on it. While climbing, I accidentally push some piece of stone and it falls down. Now, according to your understanding of art, history and its value, would it be better to quickly place the stone where it was or just leave it where it now is?

        Paintings are renovated all the time, statues and buildings are too and noone (not even the die-hard purist art historians) seem to object when the work is done well.

        I think the example

    • Re:List of Movies restored by Lowry Digital (Score:5, Informative)

      by smallpaul ( 65919 ) <paul AT prescod DOT net> on Sunday October 24, 2004 @01:02PM (#10614806)
      They really do not have a website. I know someone who works there and he says that they don't bother to market because they are overwhelmed with business.
      • I can imagine they would be. It's just that there are rumors that there are MANY more films that they've done but not been given credit for. And of course movies currently being done.

        Tell your friend to mention to them that they have fans that would love to know the work they've done and what they are doing (if the studios let them tell).

  • Why Star Wars? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Hao Wu ( 652581 )
    Please, please Mr Lucas, re-release the Christmas Special in new digital format.

    Or better- get working now on those funny Porky's movies. Or Manos, that's another gem that needs improvement.

  • Clean the dirt off? (Score:4, Funny)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Sunday October 24, 2004 @11:31AM (#10614369) Homepage Journal
    And here I would just have used some photo-wash. At least, that's what you use when you develop film :)

  • Detail increase @ home (Score:3, Funny)

    by Ceriel Nosforit ( 682174 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @11:35AM (#10614386)
    I'm very glad to hear that this technique of using the data in several frames of footage really does exist today. However, where can I get my paws on it? I've at many times wished for higher quality in various clips I've DLed, and found myself annoyed at knowing that in the sum of the data of a scene the information is there, but I can't access it. With whatever they're running at LDI, I could access it.

    Also, imagine if you will what you could learn by running this on the footage of the JFK assassination? Or all those UFO sightings? This could be the conspiracy buff's dream. =)

  • 600 G5s and the lightsabers were broken. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Guspaz ( 556486 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @11:40AM (#10614421)
    Seriously, if you're going to devote that kind of hardware to a restoration, why can't you be bothered to pay a guy to airbrush the lightsabers in rather than use the blurred crap that was the result of the cleanup? The lightsabers (in order to look good onscreen) need a white core with a coloured edge. The DVD version blurred them so much the white core is entirely gone and they're just coloured smudges all the way through.

  • Re-release of release about re-release (Score:3, Funny)

    by maztuhblastah ( 745586 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @11:44AM (#10614444) Journal
    This just in, story released about re-release of Star Wars has been re-released for /.'ers to re-read.

    Can't you realize that redoing the same posts over and over again is easily recognized by frequent readers of this news repository. Comments often respect that the editors are only human, but such a repeat of a mistake makes most redears reluctantly repeat the same jokes that they made the last time this was reposted.

    My apologies....really!
  • Get the best tool for the job..

    While most of us are stuck with lesser quality 'white box PC clones'...

  • Actually, MTI (running on Windows) is dominant (Score:5, Informative)

    by Thagg ( 9904 ) <thadbeier@gmail.com> on Sunday October 24, 2004 @01:11PM (#10614839) Journal
    It turns out that a huge part of the film restoration/cleanup work is done using programs from MTI [mtifilm.com] Right now huge film libraries are undergoing scanning and cleanup using MTI's products in preparation for high-def DVD release (once the standards get, uhm, standardized)

    These MTI workstations might have highest software/hardware cost ratio of any widely deployed system. The hardware costs are a couple of thousand dollars, and the software is well over $50,000 per system. But, they get the job done like nothing else, and it is my experience that studios demand that particular software for their restoration.

    It's not a completely automatic process by any means. The software can do a lot on its own, but it does require an artist to painstakingly review and correct the things that the software misses, or to guide the software to a correct solution.

    A friend of mine who is building a large restoration facility would love to have a Linux solution, but unfortunately none exists at this point.

    Thad Beier

  • Not just the graphics explaining the gap! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fantastic Lad ( 198284 ) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @02:01PM (#10615099)
    This may be why Star Wars was so popular when if first came out, but when little kids and others watched it many years later in re-release or on video they were somewhat less impressed by the lesser quality film they were watching.

    Or... "Gee it was more fun the first time when I was 10!" Well, that's because it actually was a better-looking film.

    The original versions of the films also didn't have the new editing, new scenes, new shots, all of which greatly diminished the pacing and believability of the film.

    There's a reason they give Oscars out for editing. --It really doesn't take much to ruin an otherwise good work. A single nail standing up on a water slide can make the whole ride a lot less enjoyable. And the re-release versions of Star Wars had a whole hardware store's worth of junk added!

    Every three minutes while watching that thing, I felt, at best that I was having to deliberately overlook stupidity, (like those new digital droids floating around Mos Eisley which it was clear from the actors' body language, were not really there and thus created a discordant effect), to my feeling like I was being stabbed when Luke Screamed while falling down the throat of Cloud City.

    So yeah, if I was a kid today watching those lousy re-release versions of Star Wars, I'd also think my elders were doddery and out-dated for raving about them; that they needed a patronizing pat on the head and a, "There, there, old timer; I'm sure they seemed like nice films in your day."

    The wide-screen, color and sound restored, but otherwise un-adultered LD copies from the mid nineties are the best versions available of the original trilogy. --There are yet to be any pirate copies of those ripped to DVD floating around, but there damned-well ought to be!

    Some of you out there have the capability to create these. DO IT. Star Wars is a vital part of our culture, and what Lucas is doing to erase it is as insidious as any 'terrorism'. --If Phantom Menace hadn't sucked, there is a good chance we could have avoided being in Iraq today.


    -FL

    • There ARE very good DVD rips of the un-altered laser discs already. Look for BitTorrents.

      Also, if you look on IMDB, there were actually a few minor changes already in the early-80s re-release of ANH. They were for the better, like the "close the blast door! open the blast door!" in the chase on the Death Star.
      • The "close the blast door" line was there in 1977, just not in all prints. It was in the 35mm mono mix, but not the 70mm 6-track mix. See here [in70mm.com] and here [earthlink.net] for more info.

        The only change made to ANH in the 80s was to add the "Episode IV" text to the opening crawl (references here [starwars.com] and here [starwars.com]). The rest of the movie was untouched until 1997.

  • How many Macs does it... (Score:4, Funny)

    by DrRobert ( 179090 ) * <rgbuice@[ ].com ['mac' in gap]> on Sunday October 24, 2004 @02:31PM (#10615274) Homepage
    to fix all the bad acting in the films... that seems like it would be a worthwhile investment for film restoration.
  • OK if they cleaned the dirt, but how do you manage to "upgrade the resolution"? From *which* resolution? I thought the recorded resolution exceeded even that of DVD's.

    Do they mean "we sharpened the image" or what?

  • Color Quality in Star Wars DVDs (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 24, 2004 @03:09PM (#10615454)
    Although the sharpness and lack of scratches/dirt is great, the color quality is pretty awful in the restored DVDs. The saturation is way too high; for example, sometimes it looks like ObiWan is wearing lipstick, the desert sand often looks bright orange, and C3P0 looks like he was painted with a flourescent marker or something. In the Millennium Falcon scene when Luke is training lightsaber, his lightsaber is bright green for some reason - even though it was originally pale blue.

    If not for the wonky color, I might be able to stomach the Lucas changes; as it is, I much prefer watching my bootleg DVDs based on the pre-special edition Laser Disks, which are basically perfect except for slightly lower sharpness than it could be.
  • The circuit senses capacitance. Do a Google search on "touch light switch" (no quotes) and among the first of 840,000 results will be our friends at X-10.

Slashdot Top Deals

The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is the most likely to be correct. -- William of Occam

Close