Revenge of the Sith Blu-ray vs 35mm (2005)

[@dartharchivus]

A few clarifications: 1. Revenge of the Sith was shot entirely digitally and mastered at 1080p, nonetheless, most theatrical showings were still printed on 35mm at the time. 2. This comparison is using the 2011 blu ray, not the 4K blu ray, for reasons described below. The 4K Blu ray was not used for this comparison for 3 reasons: 1. The 4K blu ray is missing picture, cropped from 2.35 to 2.39. 2. The 4K version is not upscaled. It is just the 2K master thrown in a 4K container, which forces “nearest” texture filtering resulting in a much more pixelated image than in its native resolution which would use bilinear filtering when shown at 4K. 3. The 4K blu ray was shipped out out on BD66 instead of BD100, which results in a lower bitrate. With this I find the 4K version inferior to the 2011 HD version.

[@walter274]

I don't know why they didn't use a better upscaler than bilinear.

[@chimeratheo1855]

Is that the case for all of the 6 movies as well? I'm looking into getting 4K upgrades of the Star Wars films, as well as some of the MCU films. Should I hold off and stick with my blu rays?

[@dartharchivus]

In my personal opinion, the only Star Wars movie that is worth the 4K is A New Hope, as the colors are better than 2011, and has most of the grain intact. Empire Strikes Back is horizontally stretched and dnr’d to hell. Also special edition scenes aren’t upscaled so they look really pixelated. RotJ has the same issues minus the stretching, but also the rotoscoping on the old effects look horrible in 4K. I do not recommend getting any of the prequels on 4K because they are all 2K masters and none of them are upscaled, and they are all cropped, they are best on 2011 if we are talking strictly official releases. As far as MCU goes, definitely check the imdb page technical specs for each film. most MCU movies are 2K masters, so their 4K releases are scams.

[@chimeratheo1855]

@dartharchivus I appreciate the advice. It's so disappointing that Disney is half-assing nearly everything they put out these days.

[@Bobbiloff]

Is this version available to watch somewhere?

[@CharlieA623Official]

Even with the difference we can all agree that this movie still holds up well almost 20 years later. People diss the prequels but the cgi at the time was truly groundbreaking

[@idiot_city5444]

Looks better than most cgi fest movies today

[@Night5225]

I think the biggest problem was the over-reliance on CGI backdrops when the scene didn’t demand it. Small scenes where characters talk in small-room settings should’ve really been sets. When it’s something alien or mechanical that can’t exist in real life, the CGI is convincing because we don’t have a frame of reference to compare it to. But rooms, hallways, and all that look uncanny when CGd.

[@poopikins]

Disney makes the prequels much more appealing

[@whodat4ever80]

@@Night5225don’t forget the clone troopers

[@FreiGuy86]

​@@Night5225They probably used more practical sets and miniatures than you realize. Such as mustafar.

[@marpalafox7842]

Everything looks so real in 35mm. The vfx blend so much better. This looks exactly how I remember it from when I was a kid

[@burritoTv]

It might be because of the darker lighting and softer image

[@saricubra2867]

But the 35mm destroys the highlight detail.

[@anakinfan8]

There are a lot of moments in ROTS where the digital effects haven't aged well on 4K -- 35mm really makes it look so much better

[@stonesfan285]

probably a 2k di

[@IncurZeAwperator]

@@stonesfan285 the movie was shot in 2k so any upscaling or film-out (like in this case) is just capped at 2k. upscaling does just make the CGI stick out like crazy.

[@IncurZeAwperator]

@@stonesfan285 its also worth mentioning that the film out prints were made from the 2k footage, not upscaled 4k footage. So a lot of the softness of the 35mm is from that, not the film itself. The film mostly adds grain and affects colors and contrast. 35mm film generally can produce more resolvable detail than 4k footage actually.

[@ronald3836]

The "35mm" version that you are seeing on KZbin is digital as well. The original is digital too.

[@Mat-hr1dg]

"Haven't aged well" Dude,... ROTS looked shit on many effect fronts from the get go. Many of the Kashyyk scenes just don't work at all, the opening space battle was a nightmare, because it really looked cheap asf even then with some rare exceptions (and whos idiotic idea was it to translate clone wars comedy into life action SW?! Stop coloring the ships and making droids ships talk, god damnit, I cringed the entire opening scene fearing the worst for the movie as a whole) and the lightsabers are by far the worst of the entire prequel trilogy. I have absolutely no idea who was in charge of that one but he shouldn't have been hired. In all honesty tpm looks the best of all the prequels by far, beacause the designs were somewhat realistic and the lightsabers look godly. Aside from the missing glow on their surroundings they are easily my favorite lightsaber look EVER.

[@user-mi1li3mw2t]

35 mm is still fantastic, imo. It gives ROTS a grittier and, dare I say, more "real" look overall. It's probably due to lack of detail and worse lighting. The FX are not as clearly differentiated from the real objects on frame.

[@Calypso694]

true film makes CGI look 10x better than when its upscaled its fucking insane.

[@crestofhonor2349]

The film was shot entirely digitally

[@Calypso694]

@@crestofhonor2349 Star Wars prequels? Really?

[@crestofhonor2349]

@@Calypso694 Only Episode 1 was shot on 35mm. Episode 2 and 3 were entirely shot digitally. Episode 2 was ground breaking as I believe it was the first Hollywood movie to be shot entirely digitally. The 35mm prints are for movie theaters which hadn’t gone digital yet

[@Calypso694]

Thanks for the info! Crazy to know. I wonder if CG looking so awful today is because of digital cameras/rushed development loads of times. Digital is so crispy you can see the pores on peoples faces and I seriously wonder if that high def contributes to awful looking CG when if it were on 35mm it would look more decent. Idk just a thought. Loads of TVs having that soap opera default look as well might contribute.

[@crestofhonor2349]

@@Calypso694 nah. CG today largely looks far better than it did then. There is a ton of VFX shots you’d never know are VFX. The main issue with VFX is a similar issue with some games. The lack of time or changing shots when they were already finished. When you lack time to do certain things well they end up looking poor. One of the most infamous unfinished shots is the ending fight scene from Black Panther. That shot was not finished. Many movies today tend to use practical effects to give a reference for how the lighting and object should look once they digitally replace it in the scene

[@MetaCinemaYT]

This made my jaw drop. It's like I was transported back to when I was 8 years old, in the theater. The 35mm version actually properly blurs and blends the vfx with the real images. It also gives proper contrast and highlights. At 1:25, I had to replay it several times because I was so astonished at how terrible the blu-ray version messed it up. The glare on Padme's lips makes that shot a renaissance painting in the 35mm version, whereas the blu-ray version gives the glare a weird outline.

[@ronald3836]

You are watching both versions through yet another digital encoding step. You are not seeing any 35mm material on KZbin. And the movie was shot digitally in the first place.

[@MetaCinemaYT]

@@ronald3836 brother if you can’t see the difference in the video, you need glasses. Of course I’m not seeing 35mm material on youtube 🤡

[@ronald3836]

@@MetaCinemaYT but you are just praising a different digital filter effect.

[@MetaCinemaYT]

@@ronald3836 then comment that to the op, not me. Idc what it is. That’s not even close to the point I’m making. I don’t know anything about film vs digital. I’m just describing what looks better.

[@HAlariousInc]

@@MetaCinemaYTbro he is responding to you bc you said it “properly blurs” the vfx and that you were transferred to the theater. This doesnt properly showcase a true 35mm print and what you see and feel is just nostalgia lmao

[@aresnir2725]

Revenge of the Sith was shoot on digital camera and all effects were made digitally.

[@alanrowan6328]

Most theatres still used film, so most showings were printed onto 35mm film. As a result, this was the last movie of the Star Wars saga to be shown on 35mm.

[@IncurZeAwperator]

@@alanrowan6328 they arent doing any film showings of newer movies?

[@Lmarkot2]

digital projection was so new back then though, so most theatres screened them in 35mm

[@ronald3836]

​@@alanrowan6328remember KZbin shows you a digital version of a digitally shot movie. So there was a digital->analog->digital conversion, but that just amounts to a filter effect which could as well be applied fully digitally.

[@amarcellus1714]

​​@@IncurZeAwperatorit depends on the agreement with the movie studios and theater chains. For example. Dune Part Two and Oppenheimer had film presentations in select theaters.

[@TheMovieDoctorful]

My local corner theater plays a lot of 35mm screenings of older movies (I caught both The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Spawn on 35mm there) I would love to see Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith screened there in 35mm. Maybe next year for its 20th Anniversary, 👀

[@zanfear]

I'm so glad that there are others out there who have realized that not all films on 4K UHD are worth it, particularly if they hail from a lot of 2K CGI scenes and end up losing a lot of fine detail, like in Star Wars, the MCU, and LOTR. Sure there may be benefits in HDR (unless it's too dark) and upgraded sound, but as a whole I'd much rather watch my blu-ray on my 4K disc player than paying for an overall disappointing 4K UHD release.

[@StarmanSkywalker]

Really liking the deep-blue / purple hue to the 35mm scan. Not sure how accurate it is to the source, but it is in general something that is absent in most color grades these days. I am tired of teal blanket tints, gold blanket tints and muted / washed out blanket tints.

[@crestofhonor2349]

The original was shot digitally so any changes in the 35mm are either film degradation or changes in the color correction for the 2011 Blu-Ray. Probably best to check the DVD version that came out along side it

[@FortisOne]

This is unfortunately what happens when you take a film where literally every shot has extensive VFX that were mastered in 1080p, and try to upscale them into 4K when the source's depth just is not there. It will make the entire image look artificial and fake. The colors on the 4K look way too saturated and bright Vs. what Lucas likely intended. The darker scenes show it best. Hoping a good fan made 35mm transfer comes out soon.

[@BlueFusion2910]

The disney masters went for a more "neutral" color tone across the board, even in the original trilogy. Notice the blueness of the tantive IV walls in ANH, versus the perfect white lit lighting of the disney plus/Disney 4k master. In those cases, I prefer Disney's color here as blueness annoys me on spaceships and interiors. On other scenes though Lucas's intended colors look better sometimes. In this video it was showing 4k first then the 35mm second each slide. Edit: i just realized this video was showing 1080p bluray not 4k

[@audie-cashstack-uk4881]

1080p is more than enough source for 4k and 35mm isn’t 1080p it’s around 4k

[@BlueFusion2910]

@@audie-cashstack-uk4881 35mm is ANALOG, its not an exact thing like digital resolution, it can be extracted into different digital resolutions up to 4k flawlessly however(not sure about higher than that)

[@benharrison7855]

I haven’t seen the 35MM film since 2005 thanks for refreshing my childhood!

[@BruceWayne-zj1kw]

35mm looks so much better, it’s not even close.

[@jereloproduces9509]

Eh, there's a lot of moments where it looks waaay too purple or contrasty/dark though. It goes back and fourth

[@Garother]

The washed out blue tint? Never. What makes it feel better is the nostalgic look of sitting in the theatre 20 years ago.

[@DockingFreidmanRecords]

There is a beauty in both

[@ronald3836]

You're watching this on KZbin. You are not seeing 35mm but a digital codec.

[@quintessentialmao3360]

@@ronald3836 The only difference would be the color range in this case, not the distribution..?

[@TheUnalteredMyth]

Wow this looks beautiful. It’s amazing how even a movie that was shot digitally looks better on film even if it has some damage. This is how George Lucas’ epic tragedy was meant to be seen

[@generaldela2128]

It fits The Phantom Manace color and feel imo

[@TheNikoBellic2008]

I think the lightsabers look a lot better in 35mm. I never really liked them in the prequels, compared to the original trilogy the digital VFX versions (if that's the correct term) of the blades look really flat, dull and frankly the colours also feel very fake and overdone. In 35mm they look more like the ones from the original films which ironically looked more believable than most of the on-screen lightsabers we've seen after.

[@aresnir2725]

On 1:10 you can see a Millennium Falcon landing on the bottom platform. And also several Naboo star skiffs

[@Moth-pz9vg]

Wow 😮, it's pretty cool to see that ship in the prequels. You have a really sharp eye, I never noticed it.

[@aresnir2725]

@@Moth-pz9vg Its actually was well known since release of the film. On this video you can more clearly see it because of still frame.

[@gammerguy1995]

The effects look more authentic in 35mm print.

[@KGBeast.]

Makes it fit in more with the original trilogy

[@LukeLovesRose]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, NOTHING beats pure film

[@KGBeast.]

Amen!

[@MildMisanthropeMaybeMassive]

ATOC and ROTS were both shot on video. In fact ATOC was the first feature length movie to be shot on 1080p and created a groundbreaking infrastructure that allowed theaters to download the movie onto hard drives.

[@alanrowan6328]

​@@MildMisanthropeMaybeMassiveAlthough, the vast majority of showings were printed onto 35mm film, as digital projection was fairly new.

[@ronald3836]

This was shot digitally and KZbin shows it digitally. You are praising a filter effect.

[@LukeLovesRose]

@@ronald3836 Maybe so but that doesnt make what I said any less true. Look at the film print for Titanic, LA Confidential, etc compared to the digital crap we have now. Film is phenomenal

[@MauricioJara]

Wow, the 35mm really does help the VFX blend in with the live action portions. The film suddenly appears more tangible than before.

[@KNG-fm1kj]

I know people say it looks more like the original trilogy but Lucas was always trying to achieve technological greatness. The Blu-Ray Version is way better because of it's enhancements

[@natalieportmanfan1817]

True

[@SP95]

Since this one was already natively digital at least that gives us a clue on what kind of artifacts are due to the film itself

[@saifblade]

I went to an event in LA where this one small production company used digital cameras and sent their edited movie to a lab that printed it on film then rescanned in digital. The results were awesome. I think its important to note film messes with the luminance level and that grain allows for a texture that makes the entire image feel more natural and blended in. Whether you rescan, shoot film, or create a digital process with filters/AI, changing luminance/highlights and adding a cohesive texture will dramatically make a more lasting impression if thats what you are going for. I hope more filmmakers just notice this by second nature

[@URBONED]

The new Dune movies and The Batman were shot like this. Digital to film and back to digital. It certainly looks good if it’s appropriate for the creative process.

[@mrmister3782]

And now compare it with the DVD release

[@duncanloviscky2329]

This is making my brain feel so validated for stuff that felt slightly dif than my first watch thank u sm Utapau and Kashyyyk lighting is golden in 35mm

[@jmorgan3977]

6:25 that's such a tragic shot.

[@charlieweston2292]

Wow the 35Mm looks so much better. It looks like the VFX were relying on the film print. I wish i’d’ve gone to see it like this with a little more appreciation for the times and the looks back then😁

[@Bobbiloff]

I always wished we could have had these versions transferred to blu-ray without any alterations. Nothing beats the feeling of 35mm.

[@monte4503]

There literally are no alterations. When you make a physical print and then scan it back into a computer, it's never going to match up with the original source. Blu-ray is literally closer to the original source since the pipeline is all digital.

[@jeramiahrossnz]

it reminds me of recording something off Spotify on tape cassette lol Actually, all my family are photographers, Film stock is really one of the 12 secret herbs and spices, as Gollum would say it makes movies look "Soooo Juicy Sweeeet"

[@bartomiejuchman9290]

20 years later... still looks better then disney movies and series.

[@natalieportmanfan1817]

Revenge of the Sith is literally the best movie in the Star Wars saga.

[@crestofhonor2349]

I can't agree with that at all. The one thing the prequels have aged poorly in is the VFX department. Some look good while many others look dated

[@natalieportmanfan1817]

@@crestofhonor2349 Star Wars VFX is great, revolutionary and has made modern blockbusters possible, literally the very first digital films. Attack of the Clones being the very first 100% digital blockbuster.

[@crestofhonor2349]

@@natalieportmanfan1817 I know they were revolutionary at the time. George Lucas was a big pusher of new technology and filming techniques. I’m not denying their technical achievements and for pushing digital filmography. I’m just saying some of the VFX haven’t aged the best despite the many achievements that the movies had accomplished

[@WhiteWolf496]

No, sorry. The Force Awakens is a stunning looking film, as is The Last Jedi and Rogue One. (I'm not looking for any discussion on anything beyond visuals) And Andor also looks absolutely incredible too.

[@garymazeffa1442]

35mm hits the mark by providing more dimension and space between images-foreground and background. There is just no comparison for being in the scene.

[@bend.7590]

Blu Ray is such a great improvement

[@ZetaReticuli1.]

4K05's preview did look good, I only wish the print was in better quality. Maybe someday..

[@StarmanSkywalker]

Yes, I wish someone could write a clean-up script that removes all these green scratches. They're the biggest distractor.

[@ZetaReticuli1.]

@@StarmanSkywalker I argue it needs a new encode altogether. Not sure why the original 2160p encode was in HDR

[@crestofhonor2349]

Well since the movie was shot digitally at 2K you'd have to do some post process enhancing to get it to 4K

[@L37777]

the 35mm looks more organic with more greenish faded dark in comparaison the digital version looks too sharp with too vibrant colors the 35mm give the movie a much more serious look It is weird but i fell much more the movie that i saw on theater when i was 11 on the 35mm

[@tylerphilco]

I think blue ray and 4k releases ruined a lot of movies that weren’t ever filmed with that in mind. I still watch Lord Of The Rings on my original dvds

[@dartharchivus]

it is an absolute tragedy that the two greatest fantasy sagas of all time were absolutely butchered for their 4K releases

[@ediskrad327]

4:58 Still wondering George's reasoning for adding the moss to the hut in 2011. One of the most head scratching changes.

[@misterjohn2]

It was done in prep for the planned 3D rerelease which never came to fruition. That part would stick out at the audience in the theater, and Lucas evidently found it to be lacking in detail. As for why that’s the only change, it’s obviously because the film is otherwise perfect in every way.

[@officialmonarchmusic]

Probably thought it needed more detail. It shows that he cared enough to make such an innocuous change in the first place.

[@dartharchivus]

@misterjohn2 this is the best explanation I’ve heard for this. I’ve always thought when watching RotS that there were a lot of scenes that were made to be seen in 3D. It also came out around a 3D craze i.e. Sharkboy and Lavagirl (fun fact, shot on the same camera). Shame the 3D version of RotS was only ever shown once at 2015 SWC

[@alchapo5372]

The hue of Windus purple lightsaber is astonishingly different

[@stonesfan285]

I thought this movie was captured digitally? I thought only The Phantom Menace was captured on film (for the prequels).

[@matthewgaudet4064]

Yes and no. Phantom had digitally shot scenes, and every shot was manipulated in a computer. The so called finished negative was filmout tape and is stuck at 2k resolution. Which is actually higher quality than the release prints in 35mm. The ungraded raw 35mm element that went through the camera exists and could be recomposed at 4k but it would be like making the movie over from scratch. They could have gone to the same source they struck release prints from to do the Blu-Ray but they didn't because the filmout tape is the highest source, so it's what the upscaled for 4k.

[@SoulbentAnime]

they still made film prints of these digital films. It's now a digital film on a physical media being 35 mm film. This will change the look of the film.

[@Andruu98]

Seeing this in the cinema was one an experience 7 year old me will never forget

[@purefoldnz3070]

this feels so good after watching the Acolyte

[@JediKnightoftheTifaCult]

35mm is much better and looks closer to the OT.

[@LordVaderTyrannus]

How can I view the 35mm print? It looks much better.

[@nicolasvalenzuela6676]

What it’s wrong with me, but why I prefer 35mm, and it’s amazing the experience Star Wars not disney

[@CarsonHoy]

Reduces highlights and brings up shadows in a very pleasing natural way

[@jpaproductionspaternostro433]

It was never meant to be in 4K it wasn’t filmed that way via this was 10-15 years before 4K was even a thing, so yes this looks amazingly better on film, DVD, or VHS because it was filmed for those versions. 4K makes it look like what all the haters complain about, because that’s all they see now due to Disney putting literally everything in 4K.

[@Gray_Box]

Oh stop it. The prequels have always looked fake af. They were top notch special effects for the day but they overused them hard. Two people talking in corridor doesn't need to be rendered on a computer, and for the life of me I have never understood why Lucas didn't think he'd need practical effects for the Clone Troopers in Episode 2. They were jarringly bad even in 2002. I agree 4K makes them look even worse though. Honestly I think the TPM may have aged the best out of them as it seems that one had more physical sets.

[@criert135]

LOTR was filmed for those versions and looks utterly, utterly magnificent in 4k

[@TheStOne1]

@@criert135LOTR looks like crap in 4K but not because of it's production, but because of the crappy 4K restoration they made.

[@TheStOne1]

35mm film is ~6K (in the original negative), but only ~2K when copied and projected in a theater, so it was meant to be seen in high definition. Sadly the HD digital cameras they used had very poor quality compared to film cameras. That's why a 4K restoration of this two films has little benefit over a standard HD Blu-ray.

[@crestofhonor2349]

@@TheStOne1 Both Episode 2 and 3 were entirely shot digitally not on 35mm film. The reason why there is a 35mm version is because theaters mostly still used film in this era. The original movie was mastered in 2K so 2048x1080

[@WhiteWolf496]

I think that theres some shots that lose too much detail on the film print due to darkness, could be due to the scan though.

[@Agtsmirnoff]

The best we can hope for is upscaling technology continues to improve I for one am grateful for all the 4k upscaling of my favorite teenage P0rn scenes 🤣🤣

[@roadblock506]

the 35mm looks better for everything except mustafar. all of the scenes on mustafar in 35mm are a bit too bright

[@sebastianurquidi6558]

This might be the unpopular opinion but I generally prefer the blu ray. While there are a couple shots where I like the theatrical prints color temperature better the black levels are crushed. For example in many shots Anakin’s’ brown tunic appears black. I really appreciate the blu rays increased color spectrum.

[@superradness]

Every release of every film should have the original negatives as a viewing option. I have the 35mm versions of the OT, and I’ll never go back!

[@DirectedbyPaco]

I knew it looked way different when I was a kid! I just wasn't sure what was the key factor

[@paulj5336]

I like how contrasty the 35mm print looks.

[@callumquinn2372]

I got to ask, how did you get the 35mm film like is it your own copy or is the film available online in this scan because I wouldn’t mind rewatching it that way since I saw it back in 2005 and my cinema still at the time used film reels

[@Wubster649]

Damn, color grading really makes the difference

[@ErifN0gard]

personally not a fan of the magenta tint in the 35mm

[@matthewhumcke3182]

it appears. the 2011 bluray has gone through all its color correction and such, and the 35mm is a........raw scan? i wonder who scanned the print and how they tweaked it: is all the grain there? did they just remove dust and scratches? was this color corrected for fading? cause i mean this print is 19 years old. if lucasfilm transferred the digitial masters to a 35mm print, the blacks wouldnt be as bad as they are here. my point is i dont think its a 100% fair comparison because one has been officially mastered for release, and the other was only meant to be projected in a dark screen, opposed to a monitor/tv

[@kirinyoshikage3871]

Where can I watch a 35mm version of these movies?

[@DoctorPillPopper]

35mm looks more serious and menacing.

[@cadester172]

Let’s be real here. Star Wars looks better in 35mm film.

[@crestofhonor2349]

It hasn't been filmed on 35mm since the Phantom Menace

[@cowlicker72]

@@crestofhonor2349 Wrong, aotc and rots were shown in 35mm in some parts of the world that didnt have digital projectors yet

[@patriciopss1491]

Is this ROTS 35mm enhanced? I found that scan and it looks superb.

[@kgeo753]

Hmm, so there must be a transfer of a film print of ROTS rolling around online, right? One of my biggest complaints about the movie is that it looks so fake in comparison to The Phantom Menace. TPM had the right balance of practical and digital effects. Each film looked progressively worse as George but I’d love to see it as it appeared in theaters on May 19, 2005.

[@selzzaW]

How was this scanned? I'm getting the impression from the highlights the the overall brightness of the 35mm is too low. Highlights in the Blu Ray are white, whereas in the print they're closer to a flat grey. I don't think this would have been the case projected, since there would be so much more light passing through the film and reflected back on the screen. I'm also wondering how much of the color differences are a result of the scan vs. the 20 year degradation of the print vs. the original color timing of the print. Also something interesting to note are the differences in detail levels. I personally think the 2011 Blu Ray is quite an excellent master, showing all the detail from the original photography and the CG. A lot of this seems to be lost in the print, but with the bonus of making the CG and live action blend better.

[@crestofhonor2349]

It was shot digitally in 2K(2048x1080) and all the effects were mastered in that resolution.

[@selzzaW]

@@crestofhonor2349 It was actually shot in 1080p, and then cropped to 2.35:1. So what you get on the Blu Ray is the full resolution of the photography.

[@crestofhonor2349]

@@selzzaW 2K is 1080p

[@selzzaW]

@@crestofhonor2349 1080p is 1920x1080. The Sony F900 and F950 used for RotS and AotC record in that resolution.

[@crestofhonor2349]

@@selzzaW The movies were mastered in 2K which is 2048x1080 not 1920x1080

[@DaBlueBountyHunter]

Very nice. I'll always have nostalgia for the blu ray version though

[@mixmastamatai]

where can you find the 35mm version to watch??

[@derworfnet]

I really wish they had shot all Prequels on Film and not switched after Episode I.

[@natalieportmanfan1817]

You have to move with the times.

[@sussygussy1138]

Funny how blue ray is the one that’s less blue

[@Corbalte]

Is it possible to get a watchable 35mm version ? It feels so much more... grounded than the Blue Ray one.

[@cowlicker72]

This is the most available 35mm version, Its out of snyc with the audio and some scenes are badly damaged

[@captaincosmopolitan5163]

VHS is where its at

[@mouseexecutor7977]

Не понимаю восторга в комментариях, просто картинка более замыленная и темная. Кстати, фильм снят на цифровую камеру в разрешении менее 2k...

[@donaldthescotishtwin]

Why does the 35mm have this blue tint all over it?

[@Znjed0]

From my point of view the digital release has a yellow tint all over it!

[@macdonald2k]

@@Znjed0 Then you are lost!

[@crestofhonor2349]

Film degradation. Since it was shot digitally colors should not shift over time

[@bowhello3207]

Great comparison. How’d you get a file of a 35mm scan?

[@arkenstoner1313]

does anyone know where you can get the prequels in 35mm? or is it just an edit you have to do yourself if you want it?

[@crestofhonor2349]

Who knows. You'd have to get an old print version from a theater, otherwise this film was entirely digital

[@lunaticsstudio]

Hi, these videos are extremely interesting, makes me want to know how would Mad Max Fury Road look like on 35MM. So, if possible, could you do a comparison please? Thanks

[@dartharchivus]

Movies prior to 2009 are easier to find 35mm prints for, because thats how they were mass distributed to theaters back then. Fury Road came out in 2015, at a time when basically all theaters had switched to digital. Looking around it looks like it was only shown in 35mm at a very few select theaters, so those prints would be very small in number and thus very hard to track down

[@lunaticsstudio]

@@dartharchivus I see. Thanks for clarifying! Ok. Hum, well, actually, the original trilogy would be great to compare too, but, I don't know how hard it is to find the reels.

[@dartharchivus]

those are already out there. look up 4K77, 4K80, and 4K83

[@ThaRiddler]

How are you getting the film print?

[@organfan668]

The colors on the 35mm make more sense

[@sumbohdee2luv]

so your comparing one digital version with a digital scan of a film print of a digital version. to what end? lol

[@TONEDEAFSOUND]

kashykk specifically

[@darthgimbo]

Good work

[@TheBurak47]

Looks so good nice vid

[@superhayes256]

I don’t understand the comments saying 35 looks better. Lol

[@zgamerdb1071]

bro are u blind? is looking better dude

[@michaelkirste2432]

Looks a lot less like a cartoon on 35mm

[@connorweisberg3956]

There a link to the 35mm version?

[@达斯摩尔]

Make the special effects more realistic by reducing the image quality. But the details of the special effects themselves will not increase, it's just human imagination. Lucasfilm should completely reset the special effects instead of fans using a low-definition version to watch.

[@crestofhonor2349]

The film was mastered in 2K as that was the trend. It was not only easier when doing VFX as shots could be rendered quickly, but it also matched the digital cameras of the era. Episode 2 and 3 were shot entirely digitally after all. Movies didn't start to master effects at 4K or higher up until around 7 years ago

[@Liberty-ul4ox]

how can i watch 35mm version

[@patriciopss1491]

I need to see this version. Is there any place to see it or download it ?

[@MrMisanthrope84]

Looks 'finished' in film.

[@Dogger557]

I’m pretty sure the cgi scenes weren’t filmed on an actual camera 💀

[@dartharchivus]

its common knowledge that Star Wars just happened and George just happened to be filming the whole time

[@cowlicker72]

@@dartharchivus Got really lucky he had a camera on hand 6 times in a row

[@grahamhill676]

Everyone singing 35mm praises like its not just making evrything blue.

[@cowlicker72]

🤡

[@Lmarkot2]

where did you get the stills for the 35mm?

[@crestofhonor2349]

Probably an old theater print

[@Lmarkot2]

@@crestofhonor2349 oh i bet, but i want it 😭

[@petera.michaelsen4657]

bring back grain and color grading!

[@crestofhonor2349]

It never had grain in the first place. The movie was shot entirely digitally. The 35mm print was for movie theaters since they weren't digital yet. Color grading was already standard then and is used with every single movie released today

[@petera.michaelsen4657]

@@crestofhonor2349 the projected film had grain as part of its conversion to analog. Yes it was not natural grain form actual film but it is still a nice cinematic touch that I’m glad was back on every single new movie Lucasfilm has put out. The color grading for the theatrical releases was drastically different on every single film of the original saga. That’s what I meant, bring back the theatrical color grading.

[@crestofhonor2349]

@@petera.michaelsen4657 I doubt it’s any different from the original film print. Much of this looks like film degradation. I can and do agree with your other points though. However here most of the scenes don’t look too different aside from a touch of blue and black crush making dark areas loose detail

[@Sebastian-hj4fu]

revenge of the sith was not shot in 35mm. back in ep.2 they started only shooting digital. WTF is this?

[@alanrowan6328]

Did you not read the pinned comment?

[@Sebastian-hj4fu]

@@alanrowan6328 He basically said that this is a 35mm conversion... Not a 35mm film, but a conversion from digital to 35mm. So the title bluray vs 35mm is not the truth. Since its NOT a 35mm movie.... you people.

[@alanrowan6328]

@@Sebastian-hj4fu It's digital to 35mm to digital again, this is a raw scan (with scratches and everything). Also, there's no need to be mean.

[@Sebastian-hj4fu]

@@alanrowan6328 thats exactly what I said, so its not a 35mm film. That's a fact. So the title is not correct.

[@alanrowan6328]

​@@Sebastian-hj4fu What title would you give the video then?

[@oldbrownshoe52]

Cool video but don’t do it compared to the 2011 blu ray transfer do against the current 4K hdr transfer pulled from a disc.

[@standoutsteel023]

clearer? yes. better?.......

[@maximocapcom]

Why there is no Star Wars Open Mates?

[@cowlicker72]

because nearly every shot has cgi, no use rendering cgi thats not gonna be seen when cropped for theaters