The Phantom Menace 4K vs 35mm (1999)

[@stevemuzak8526]

35mm makes CGI blend in so much better.

[@SimpSauceLtd.]

agreed

[@Accountnamehere1968]

Yeah because of the film grain. The Blu-ray and 4K releases for this movie decided to remove the grain and make the VFX more obvious (on top of making everyone's skin look waxy).

[@ArchineOne]

@@Accountnamehere1968Film grain but colour grading. The 35mm film has warm temperatures. It mimics natural lights and enhances the richness and depth of the imagery, thus making the CGI blend better

[@johnhanna9634]

Damn dude, it’s for real jarring.

[@JustinMcVicar]

And also the lack of digital smoothing.

[@AlexanderBruyns]

The 35mm film grain and color palette definitely helps blend the CGI better with everything else.

[@palpidious]

It's not just the grain, but the image has more detail including the CGI. Apparently they removed the grain for the Blu-ray edition to maintain consistency with the digital image of the other prequels. A side effect of the process is that some of the fine detail in the image is also lost and so the CGI looks more artificial.

[@Akasacarafilm]

@@palpidious same exact things happen with masterpieces from Peter Jackson and James Cameron. Why.... it is so sad that we get e better 4k scan from original negative from lesser known franchise with less money that cannot afford Digital Noise Reduction.

[@vegansoy]

@@Akasacarafilm what lesser known franchise are you speaking of?

[@borafalardemusica]

Exactly

[@ONI1013.]

Feels like the inherent high contrast due to 4k resolution makes it worst.

[@IanNCC1701]

It’s crazy how much better a film looks when it’s not made to look like a movie shot digitally today.

[@RexKwonDough]

i always liked that about film it looks like you are watching a window into their world now i feel like the world is just being generated on the tv. like a cartoon.

[@CrazyHorseInvincible]

I like how you added "today" at the end to avoid criticizing the other prequels, which were shot digitally.

[@IanNCC1701]

@@CrazyHorseInvincible “Today” was meant as “in general”. As most movies are shot digitally now. Trust me I don’t like the look of the other 2 prequels either. But they were shot digitally from the beginning, TPM was not.

[@garethjones909]

Nah

[@I_Shit_on_your_shit_point]

Its crazy how what i like may not align with what you like which may not align with what someone else likes Maybe calling reality “crazy” doesnt quite work

[@Tyresaurus]

Wow - the 35mm print looks so much more real!

[@borafalardemusica]

Indeed

[@Danthehorse]

I miss film and the use of lens filters etc. It necessitated thinking and planning shots artistically.

[@randomone4832]

Yeah because it’s the original, unaltered version!

[@rickdeckardbladerunner2049]

It would have been great of they would not have done a new color correction, and just upscale to 4k. Those blues are overwhelming.

[@andy86i]

Republic credits are no good out here!

[@riloegaming]

Ok good, so I didn't dream that when I first saw the Phantom Menace it wasn't so damn BLUE. I have all these memories of the movie having a way more lifelike, colorful aesthetic.

[@matiaspage]

Everything is blue now for some reason. It's disgusting. So many movie "remasters" end up like this.

[@pologoalie7]

Saw it today and thought the same thing. AI smooth and blue...

[@EmpyreanDreamer]

To be fair until I saw this comparison I didn't realize the original was so green lol. I wouldn't call it colorful or lifelike. Literally every shot no matter what location has a green tint. Personally I think the color correction on the 4k is the one thing which looks better, that aside film looks better.

[@beavisdoge237]

This green tint is most likely from fading and coloring changes that occur over time as film ages. The film probably didn't have that originally.

[@NoCluYT]

@@matiaspagethat's because you guys are used to stuff tinted with green. Content nowadays has better colour accuracy which is why it appears "blue" to those that consume more older stuff

[@benharrison7855]

All 35MM film should be archived and preserved at all costs!

[@1980venom]

Amen to that

[@Q80Warlock]

They can be scanned in 4K but studios always like to play around when rescanning them.

[@IceTTom]

This lame “protect at all cost” comment is sooo tired and overused. 🙄

[@1980venom]

@@IceTTom you clearly don’t care. You don’t care that they destroy everything from the past. If they nuked the pyramids of Egypt, you wouldn’t care one bit. That’s lame. Your attitude is lame. Your comment is overused, because you got no proper opinion and lack a serious amount of taste. You’re part of the remastered remake generation. Everything that comes out today for you is automatically better than what came out in the past. You’ll learn to be more nuanced when you get older instead of seeing everything in black and white.

[@icravedeath.1200]

​@@IceTTomyawn

[@casinodertoten721]

Me looking at the 4K: I don’t see that much of a change. Me looking at the OG: Oh my god! Yes! That’s it! That’s my childhood right there!

[@theutilitymonster2615]

Same, man

[@casinodertoten721]

@@pauldavis5665 you‘re welcome :)

[@eran1081]

Its amazing how beautiful and natural and just cinematic 35mm releases are. this hobby needs more releases like this of more films, should be a legitimate format just as dvd, bd...

[@visionist7]

6:24 look at Yoda's expression change from the CGI to the puppet 🤣

[@OgeeStroid]

Before and after deathsticks

[@patatebanine4278]

😂 he was high 🌿

[@patatebanine4278]

​@@OgeeStroid😂LMAO

[@OgeeStroid]

@@patatebanine4278 definitely 😂

[@aolson1111]

He's on that ketamine.

[@IvanKinkle]

It’s funny, some of these 4K shots look better in terms of color but some of the 35MM shots look better than the 4K.

[@BlueFusion2910]

The 4k version used film noise eliminators which also kill detail

[@whitleypedia]

absolutely

[@willscorner8423]

No especially color looks way better with 35mm.

[@whitleypedia]

@@willscorner8423 yes I had to double check because I thought the 35mm was the reprint

[@user-ol7bt4wp1j]

The 4K color palette looks better in some shots But the cgi combined with the cinematography looks 100% better on 35 mm and has far more if that old movie magic imo.

[@davidisinger4806]

35mm looks incredible. Every frame is like a beautiful photograph

[@jerchongkong5387]

Because it is, each frame is technically a photograph.

[@John-gg3qy]

That’s exactly what I think… like a photograph

[@bend.7590]

Looks awful compared to the 4k. So washed out and bland

[@GraveUypo]

hot take: it doesn't. it looks grainy af and worn out. The biggest advantage is that it preserves more detail but even that is marginal. this film is so worn, blurry and low quality that you can preserve 85% of it's quality with a 720p scan.

[@daveruda]

@@bend.7590 the 4k is all fake post processing, over saturation upscale right

[@camgalloway691]

There’s just something about those old Arriflexes and Panavision Panifelxes. I feel like mid to late 90s we peaked at just the right sweet spot for how a beautiful image should look.

[@Donkeypunch182]

Im 35 years old now and nothing can compare to the excitement of watching this on the day of release .... the excitement and the massiveness. Its unreal!! seeing both generations come together to see this at the time when the world was more real and pure!!! I cant explain it!!!!

[@braxtonwages195]

Yes I remember. The expectations were unrealistically high but still what a great experience. The CGI was mind blowing. There was nothing that looked that good.

[@olipro]

Episode 1 The Phantom Menace. Matrix. The Lords of the rings the fellowship of the ring. What a time to be a teenager !

[@samuelmcl.9474]

“More real and pure?”

[@mphylo2296]

@@samuelmcl.9474 Sad isn’t it. People letting their nostalgia mislead them into thinking the world really was purer or better than it is now. As if the late 90s and early 2000s weren’t a harsh and sobering time. As if this movie wasn’t extraordinarily divisive upon release. As if the cast weren’t subjected to a great deal of torment by the public. Who are they trying to fool?

[@johnpsy4129]

​@@mphylo2296definitely better than now at least

[@Alidonius6721]

TBH the 35 mm Prints looks better than 4K.

[@keaton718]

It was shot at 2K so we may have to wait for more advanced scaling AI before we get a version that looks better in 4K in terms of resolution anyway.

[@SirWilly77]

@@keaton718 AOTC and ROTS were shot on 2K; TPM was shot on film.

[@jonathannoble9465]

@@SirWilly77it was mostly shot on film but some were digital

[@TheLapari]

@@keaton718 film is approx 5.6K resolution

[@crestofhonor2349]

@@TheLapari Film doesn't have a resolution. The grain amount will vary too as 16mm has less detail than 35mm and then there's the rarely used 70mm iMax format

[@jaketrovillion6159]

I saw Phantom Menace in theaters when I was 6, and I always remembered the CGI in the movie looking way more lifelike than when I saw it again later as an adult. I had chalked it up to me being too young to remember properly, but now I'm convinced it properly looked better because of the film grain and color grading.

[@DoctorsBusinessNetwork]

The 35mm stuff shows you that you need to properly blend synthetic with organic for lack of better words.

[@Durge75]

Damn i miss the 90's

[@jamesgravil9162]

Don't we all.

[@TheStOne1]

35 mm looks much better. Some color corrections could be done to improve it further, but the picture quality is miles better than the crappy 4K Blu-ray. Even the CGI characters look more real in 35mm thanks to the film grain and more muted/realistic colors...

[@toastymaster4445]

exactly what I thought too, especially those forest and pod race scenes look much more natural on film

[@danym48]

Yes is true... 35mm looks in "sepia" but is actually better

[@palpidious]

It's not just the grain, but the filter they used to remove the grain that makes everything lose detail, so the CGI stands out by looking more artificial.

[@ONI1013.]

Feels like the inherent high contrast due to 4k resolution makes it worst. And it’s not just CGI, but even the actors blend in more without the high contrast

[@user-kr2yj4dm3l]

@@palpidious even with AI tech coming along, they really should just leave the charm of film grain alone, nothing automated is going to preserve that level of depth to the image either way. Colour correction is ok, but should still feel art directed. Obviously the yellows got a bit too much, maybe that was film aging? I don't know. But it certainly feels like they dropped the yellow instead of probably bringing others back up because they were the ones that had faded.

[@4Kmichelinstarmovies]

the 4k was DNR'd to death all detail is scrubbed so its waxy looking.

[@cazzhmir]

phantom menace has such a weird neo-original trilogy vibe that II and III don't come close to replicating

[@Lucrei.]

This is because II and III were shot digitally

[@SpenceGray]

Hello, I am a digital engineer/digital imaging technician in the Film Industry, so for what it's worth: -A lot of the baked in grain level, "green" color cast, and gamma levels are specific to this film print and not necessarily reflective of the actual DI grade. Not to mention the age of this print by the time it was scanned. So I don't think its fair to judge one color grade to the other. Lucas is notorious for completely re-grading his films during iterations of remasters, and I hate that too, but I'm not sure how much we can judge that from this print. -What is more telling is that whatever digital noise reduction tools were used for the 4K BluRay remaster clearly strip away a ton of fine details. Combine that with the digital sharpening, the end result might strip away film grain (which is an industry standard procedure) but it also makes the images look more sterile, plastic, and lifeless. Some of the frames of faces look like AI paintings. As others have mentioned, film grain is often used to help mask hard edges on CGI and other comp layers, blending the images better. Modern compositors rely on this less today, because both film and digital cinema cameras can produce native images with far less grain. Not to mention the tools to create digital compositions, CGI characters, etc have improved dramatically since the late 90s. -When you reach back in time to remaster something, you're removing one minor technical imperfection of the time, but trading that for major visual distractions that "break the 4th wall" or immersion in the story. It shows a tone deafness to what is important to world building and helping engross an audience; because that minor technical imperfection was a vital part of selling the digital elements (given the time & technological constraints of that era). -This feels very similar to Lucas' decision to insist on using the LaserDisc (or was it betatape?) master of Star Wars instead of the original archival film print. Now that 35mm prints of the original trilogy are surfacing and being scanned by fans with projects like 4K77, 4K80, 4K83, etc, they demonstrate the same theme: radical loss in quality going from an inferior old technology and trying to upscale to 4k, compared to taking the high quality prints as the definitive archival master. -Whenever a film print is scanned, denoise/degrain considerations are just a part of archival process. There is a way to do it respectfully while maintaining the integrity of the artistic vision & story. Phantom Menace goes way, WAY too far and becomes lifeless feeling, which is ultimately disengaging.

[@SpenceGray]

For the record, I'm a huge admirer of George Lucas. I can listen to him talk about the philosophy of filmmaking and storytelling (via interviews) endlessly. His contributions to our industry are so numerous its almost impossible to quantify. I recommend 'Light & Magic' on Disney+ for some perspective on this. Having said that, I'm totally in the Mr. Plinkett camp of frustrated fans that can't understand his decision making regarding tinkering with his films in a way that goes far beyond what one might sensibly consider a "Remaster".

[@SpenceGray]

@TheTrueStarWarsFan-xp6zj There is definitely a philosophic debate with the purist nature of remastering and I don't think it always centres around nostalgia. It can be hijacked by nostalgia, for sure, but at best its an attempt to remind people that this is a part of our historic cultural cannon, and so we should be careful to set the precedent of tinkering with art once it has permeated the public's consciousness so profoundly. You may make a good point about the CGI technically being superior to the old puppet, but I think in regards to the methods used for digitally sharpening, I don't believe it looks better what-so-ever. It feels like someone obsessing over a couple of wrinkles in their face, getting a ton of botox to counteract the wrinkles, and thinking this makes themselves look more youthful. The wrinkles have gone, but they don't see that they now have a stiff, puffy/swollen looking face. Maybe the expression "penny-wise, pound-poor" could apply to the denoise/digital sharpening in the 4K BluRay remaster".

[@bigalejoshileno]

Laserdisc had a point: no digital noise, good color bandwidth. Excellent for TV, but the film is the truth. Also AFAIK, there was no progressive laserdisc. This limits what can be done with it, making it inadequate for larger resolution digital videos. I would understand that a color correction is necessary (the movie is greenish by itself), but the noise removal is too aggressive. For example, in the duel scenes, the movie exploits very well the skin detail of all the involved characters to show sweat, trembling and color changes. The pores are almost lost in 4k due to this noise removal.

[@henrikmikaelkristensen4784]

I'm just an amateur with casual interest in the film process. It seems to me there is a lot of "peeing in the soup" and a lack of respect and professionalism on a remastering of some films, and it's gotten a lot worse over the past decade. George Lucas probably doesn't demand that the CGI stand out more awkwardly in the remastered version. He would probably demand specific color grading and denoising, and perhaps he changes opinion on color grading between remasters. But other than that: Did they have too little time? Was the remastering supervisor incompetent? Were there disagreements in the process that led to the worst outcome? Did they not bother to calibrate their screens? Even me, barely a Photoshop idiot, can do better than this. My personal "favorite": Was there someone selling George Lucas software and consultation to do the process, and it ended up worse than otherwise? AI upscaling and denoising is up a lot these days, and peddling such products inappropriately as "magic solutions" will lead to substandard results. I have learned that this kind of selling software to VFX companies is a thing, and it's quite disheartening.

[@crestofhonor2349]

@@bigalejoshileno Wasn't laserdisc technically still analog and not digital like DVDs?

[@yuujihirose7033]

I found that the 35mm version reproduced more detail. 4k is missing fine detail.

[@stevemuzak8526]

Because they applied digital noise reduction on 4k. Removing film grain is always a bad idea. DNR is killing micro details and makes everything looks artificial. 35MM looks organic.

[@bigalejoshileno]

Is an horrendous contradiction: you have 4k to have the maximum possible detail, but in the process of converting it you destroy the detail. Absolute stupidity!

[@yospidey0078]

I am kind of annoyed by the digital noise reduction used for the 4K. Everything looks too waxy and smooth to an unrealistic degree which is weird since it was filmed in 35mm, and I think Revenge of the Sith looks better despite that movie being fixed at 2K for the 4K release.

[@emoxvx]

Yeah, Episode III definitely looks better out of the prequels nowadays. It was shot digitally in the early 2000s, sure, but it looks significantly better than Episode II. The colour palette for Episode III is incredible, not only that but all the models they used are great, a good number of the CG shots still look good to this day, the matte paintings, and so on and so forth. Some of the CG in Episode III isn't that great nowadays, but remember, the film came out almost 20 years ago. But definitely an improvement when compared to Episodes II and I in that department.

[@yospidey0078]

@@emoxvx But that's so weird though that Episode 3 looks good. I get Lucas wanting all three prequels to look similar and have no grain. But I actually think Phantom Menace wouldn't look so weird with grain added to get detail back since that film is the earliest story the films go and most of the film is sort of like a historic event or period piece even. There is a huge time jump from Episode 1 to Episode 2 and 2 looking digital would make sense sort of due to time passing. The grain would fit right in in my opinion.

[@emoxvx]

@@yospidey0078 I can't stand DNR in films. It's not only DNR, there are other techniques used, but God, the textures look so rubbery...

[@crestofhonor2349]

I also don't like film grain reduction. It's there for a reason and grain is detail. When you scrub it you lose detail too. My only issue is it's clear the film has been degraded

[@Lucrei.]

I'd love to see someone take this scan of the 35mm and just colour correct it (nothing else) I think that would be the best way to watch the film then

[@roccoborghetti4693]

This is why I will never get rid of my 2004 OT Box Set and 2005 Deluxe PT sets of DVDs. They are exactly as George intended them to be. Perfect in every way.

[@oranmccann2476]

I still have those DVDs and although my DVD of Empire Strikes Back stopped working, I'm not giving up those DVDs.

[@tigqc]

Fortunately for Lucas, the fact that he originally shot this on 35mm meant that he had the flexibility to make as many changes as he did.

[@Ultimabendessen]

Please explain.

[@DummyThiccOwO]

@@Ultimabendessendigital cameras at the time were not high enough resolution to edit as well as was needed, hence why they were experimented on here, and later, when the quality improved, used in full

[@wisehippo3072]

He considered it unfortunate. His plan was to ahoot Episode I digitally but Sony couldn't get thr camera ready in time. Only 2 scenes in that movie were shot digitally, both during additional photography which was in 1998 compared to principal photography which was in 1997. One of those scenes is the one where Qui-Gon tests Anakin's midichlorians.

[@Ultimabendessen]

@@wisehippo3072 Yeah, when he went to digital for episodes 2 and 3, he just loved how much easier it was to get dailies (almost instantaneous) and it made it easier by keeping everything digital in the post production process. Unfortunately, episodes 2 and 3 were shot in low definition, so they will never look as realistic as episode 1. I personally really like the shots in Theed Palace.

[@Lucrei.]

@@Ultimabendessen this is correct... II and III were basically shot in 2K The 4K discs we have are just slightly more hands-on ai upscaling

[@Durwood71]

The 4K is cleaner, sharper, and has better colors, but the 35mm print has more detail. This is especially evident in every closeup of an actor. The grain removal process left their skin unnaturally flawless. For that matter, some of the detail is lost even in the CGI characters. For example, battle droids with scuffed paint in the 35mm print look like they just rolled off the assembly line in the 4K version.

[@ThatBonsaipanda]

The 4K release exhibits incredibly unrealistic colors, like the color timer was blind or on a coffee break. The film was painstakingly matched with the print stock to keep it up to THX quality, all of that was ignored with the 4K release and the colors are all over the place.

[@spyegle]

@@ThatBonsaipanda YEAH the color grading is all over the place. Not only do we lose scene/environment related colors (each place having its own color tone in the 35mm) but the skins of the characters in the 4k are ugly as HELL and orange ?????

[@SaxSpy]

@@ThatBonsaipanda right so many ugly purples

[@StephenWSanders]

You're absolutely right about the actors. Look at the difference in Palpatine's face toward the end.

[@NezD]

YeaI, they lose a lot of luminance from green to blue and overcompensate with contrast IMO

[@getnaenaed99]

6:24 "Shit, this edible ain't" 6:27 20 minutes later

[@HelloSnake]

George: "The movie looked the way I made it, and I took that personally."

[@NunoLuna]

Yeaaaah this is exactly how I remembered it in theaters! It looks so much better without the blue overtone

[@URBONED]

@people asking why the film looks so green. Film prints are made of chemicals, when it sits for 25 years the colours can skew and fade - they don’t stay pristine forever unless properly cold stored - which is usually reserved for camera negatives, not regular prints. Suffice it to say, it still may have had a green tint originally, you wouldn’t know unless you saw the lab notes when they originally made them. Even with the green I think the film looks a million times better. Would love to see 2 and 3 on 35mm prints and see if it makes them look less like a video game.

[@luigiman425]

For 2 and 3 I think you'd be disappointed. Episode 1 was still shot on 35mm film while neither of the other prequels were. The Prequels did receive transfers to film for theater projection, but this would actually make the resolution worse because you'd essentially be taking a low res digital source and converting it to film.

[@URBONED]

@@luigiman425 I know, but the softness of the film and the texture of grain, I think, would help take off the harsh edge of the digital look and help hide the effects. It may not be an improvement but it would be interesting to see.

[@timchristensen2522]

35mm prints are a thing of beauty, but nothing - nothing - can make Attack of the Clones enjoyable, and after 12 years I'm about ready to make my peace with that

[@URBONED]

@@timchristensen2522 🤣 Revenge of the Sith is the only prequel I enjoy. But maybe some visual improvements might make the first two palatable for me haha

[@jamesgravil9162]

@@timchristensen2522 "nothing - nothing - can make Attack of the Clones enjoyable" Maybe if you took some death sticks before watching it?

[@RobloxianX]

in the future we're gonna get 4K99, 4K02, and 4K05. As original theatrical versions of the prequel trilogy.

[@natalieportmanfan1817]

Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith were not shot on film.

[@mikkolintunen4750]

@@natalieportmanfan1817 Maybe not shot on film, but they were both printed on film and shown in theaters from the 35mm film prints.

[@Durwood71]

@@mikkolintunen4750 Depends on which theater you went to. If I remember correctly, _Attack of the Clones_ was, if not the first, then one of the first high profile films to be widely released digitally.

[@stevemuzak8526]

@@Durwood71 Yes but not in every theater. Back then most theaters wasn't digital yet.

[@palpidious]

@@mikkolintunen4750 The thing is that both were finished digitally and the 35mm versions were conversions.

[@biggiejerseysTV]

I totally had forgotten about how Yoda was puppet in the original cut.

[@iamgeorgesears]

It's like the movie was made with film in mind. Everything blends in so well in 35mm while pops out in digital.

[@JackDawson2008]

Unpopular Opinion: I love the Theatrical Cut With the Yoda Puppet.

[@franciscoolivas3913]

Me too

[@airbendingeagle2358]

I'm with you

[@IanNCC1701]

I don’t even think that’s an unpopular opinion to be honest

[@JackDawson2008]

@@airbendingeagle2358 Thank Brother 🫡

[@JackDawson2008]

@@IanNCC1701 Thanks

[@LookAtThisRock]

4k....aka "Let's just blue shift everything". They did this with Terminator 2 as well.

[@JFinns]

T2 Theatrical is the only version to watch. The longer recuts are terrible.

[@LookAtThisRock]

​@@JFinns I wouldn't say they are terrible (outside of the blue color shift), the additional scenes are just not necessary. While the deleted scenes are interesting, I think the only one that really is worth including is where the T-1000 glitches while holding the hand rail after being shattered. It just adds more explanation to why his feet are mimicking the floor in a later shot. Maaaaybe you could talk me into the Miles scene with his wife of him talking about the CPU he's building, but that would be a hard sell for me.

[@KK-mo9df]

That's why it's called Blu-ray

[@konnorfoxworth9632]

Not just blue shift, but make the contrast so huge you can barely see anything that’s going on!

[@LookAtThisRock]

@@KK-mo9df 🤣🤣🤣

[@OtaconNachos]

The Battle of Naboo in the 4K is almost unwatchable, it's has so much blown out green and denoised visuals that it hurts my eyes. The 35mm really is the way I remember seeing it back in 1999.

[@118halospartan]

It's criminal that Disney hasn't made a 35mm 4k version of the movie available. It was clearly not made to be seen with the artificial upscaling and color-correction. It needs that filmic grit that the originals had!

[@david3atista]

4k has better colours, 35mm has better VFX integration

[@evanus]

Not to mention GRAIN, 35mm looks a lot more natural and filmic

[@Durwood71]

@@evanus Because removing grain removes detail.

[@ironcladnomad5639]

My opinion has been that a VFX-heavy movie will always look better on film than digital because it's easier to make sterile effects match a gritty world than it is to make a sterile world match gritty actors.

[@DennisTrovato]

The grain really ties the whole image together.

[@jerr0.]

I feel like the color in the 35mm is closer to the Original Trilogy, even if it's less vibrant

[@cameronpearce5943]

I do miss how in 35 the grain helped with the effects integration and the human characters didn’t look so pink

[@dojoworks7704]

For those curious, If you have the bluray and a decent tv try changing the picture settings, some of them have a movie or film mode which can make huge differences.

[@kurtdewittphoto]

35mm looks better in almost every shot. Really makes me wish I could find a film projection of the movie and experience it the way I did in 99. I'll never forget it. Not a perfect expierence though, because the film melted just as the ground battle was starting. The crowd was in an uproar lol. Thankfully, the projectionist had it repaired fairly quickly and the crowd responded with cheers. When I went back to see it two more times, there was a 10-20 second jump where the film had melted.

[@janormcjones1465]

4K : Blue 1999 35 mm : brown

[@gohanrebelde9888]

35 mm is green actually

[@kamil.p5134]

You summed it up perfectly bruh

[@halfgod]

U see the green as brown. You have to check your eyes

[@piccolo5346]

You can't see the noise they removed in 4k?

[@cheeser69420]

@@piccolo5346 It's not noise, it's film grain.

[@JeremieFriez]

Damn the CGI integration was so much better... Is there a 35mm version available somewhere ?

[@ambientoverlord]

I think the LaserDisc verison may be the only official way to have the original color grading (plus puppet Yoda) in a "widescreen" format, tho even that's just letterboxed within a 4:3 container. The collector's edition VHS set has the film in widescreen as well, but the LaserDisc has vastly superior video quality and a 6.1 Dolby Digital EX audio track. It's very, very impressive on the right setup.

[@retrogameguide87]

Im owner of one of the Laserdisc Copy. It has Japan Subtitles. Maybe it would possible to do a color correction from LD as reference on 4K Bluray

[@ambientoverlord]

​@@retrogameguide87 I've got a copy too. The subtitles could probably be removed after a screen capture - can't recall if they exist solely in the black at the bottom or if they ever enter the actual video. There's also some high end Japanese players capable of turning the subs off - they aren't actually burnt in. A regrading of the 4K version might work, but it's so scrubbed that much of the grain would be permanently lost that compliments the warmer overall tone. Would be "best" for someone with an original film reel to go the other way and scan it at 4K from that.

[@zachbernstein3804]

Eventually they’ll do a 4k99 and this will become the premiere medium of enjoyment

[@JeremieFriez]

@@zachbernstein3804 Yeah, it would be very cool if someone was able to do it as it was done with the original trilogy. Been doing some research after asking my question. The job was started but never finished. Let's hope we'll be able to see that someday! 🤞

[@OtisF96]

If you want to achieve a similar look to the 35mm print at home, change your TVs colour temp to Warm/Warm 2. This best replicates how films look right off the film reel.

[@SeanmanBand]

Keep in mind, this was one specific 35mm print. I saw it multiple times in the theater and I don't remember it looking that yellow...

[@NebLleb]

As someone who owns the 2011 transfer and has seen the current 4K transfer in cinemas during its 3-day-rerelease... The Disney transfer is a major improvement over its predecessor. The colours, VFX and cinematography look much better than the unwarranted blue of the 2011 one. It actually looks less like a digital copy and more like an actual film IMO, and the industrial blues and earthy hues of the Droid control ship and Naboo come to life a lot better. However, the OG 35mm looks better than both with better integration of the CG, especially considering that The Phantom Menace was the last Star Wars movie to be shot on film until The Force Awakens 16 years later. Because of this, I feel that 4K99, a fanmade restoration of the original theatrical version in the vein of TeamNegative1's 4K projects using a Czech-dubbed print that was resynced with the English sound mix, is definitely the best looking version of the film available right now. However, the current Disney transfer comes second for me.

[@carlosyaya2890]

Where can I find it please?

[@NebLleb]

@@carlosyaya2890 The same forum where you can find the 4K projects.

[@KoljaGamer]

@@carlosyaya2890 If you mean the 4K transfer: If my information are correct, it is the version streamable at Disney+

[@carlosyaya2890]

@@KoljaGamer Meant the 35mm scan

[@KoljaGamer]

@@carlosyaya2890 oh, okay. I don’t know where you can find it. I am sorry.

[@David-hu2zx]

The grain of Real film will always win. Hands down

[@MrbdWzrdOjos]

The difference in Quality is most notably to me in the Mos Espa race motion blur on the ground. 4k looks like heavy antialiasing with no texture filtering, 35mm has all the detail even though the image is blurred which actually adds more "speed" to a static image.

[@Mike-jm5wt]

For the most part I prefer the 4K version, there are some 35mm shots that I like more but Phantom Menace was the only prequel shot on film so they clearly wanted to make it match the subsequent films. Having seen phantom menace in theaters and loving it, then trashing the prequels because obviously the original films are better, to now appreciating them for what they are I will gladly watch these again and forget Disney ever made 7,8, & 9.

[@user-jp1lx9om9l]

The CGI characters including actors looked better in 35mm...upscaling it to 4k seemed to took it's great details.

[@idiot_city5244]

What is blurays damn obsession with teal lol

[@JFinns]

They call it Blu-ray because everything is graded blue. /s

[@crestofhonor2349]

The original version isn't right. It's pretty clearly effected by film degradation. The 4K version is much closer to how it looked in terms of color

[@RicardoMusch]

Just to point out, a lot of what people thought was CGI in this movie was actually (miniature) models. Like the Trade Federation ships, Republic Cruiser and Naboo fighters (in some shots).

[@80s_Film_Fan]

Much prefer the 35mm. CGI looks better. Film looks grittier and less cartoon like. Blends better with the original theatrical version of New Hope, Empire and Jedi

[@alasdairpithie2398]

Which 35mm scan is this from? Is it the 4k99 czech scan, or from a different source? If it is the Czech scan, how come it looks so crisp and green? The version I've seen is not this sharp and the grain is very soft.

[@Rowie235]

Film grain should never be scrubbed from a film. Looking at you, Cameron!

[@oliverjackson5070]

The blending of the 35mm makes it so much more emotive & the colour palette actually makes more sense.

[@billyblueberry]

The colour difference, particularly the tint on 35mm, is probably due to the age of the film when scanned and is more pronounced that it would have been originally

[@ghostviggen]

To bad that Disney uses the 4K master for theater. It didn’t look good at all on the big screen.

[@mjlivetv8065]

So true The CGI looked so bad on it

[@lopec87]

yeah i wondered if it was just my screen or projectionist, LOL. it was a fun re-experiencing it in a theater, but i was less than impressed with how it looked on the screen.

[@houstonhughes184]

People attribute this version to Disney, but it was actually prepped by Lucas leading up to the handoff. Disney didn't add Macklunky either. GL did. They are contractually obligated to use these versions. They can't put out the theatrical versions of any of the six films.

[@kevinturner4936]

My god. Imagine how "Clones" and "Sith" would have looked on 35mm film.

[@palpidious]

Attack of the Clones looks experimental, but Revenge of the Sith looks great even 19 years later.

[@tsukopara2054]

Attack of the Clones would've probably been the single best looking movie of the Original Saga if it was shot on film with the same effects techniques as The Phantom Menace, but at the end of the day the advancements made via filming it the way Lucas did pushed cinema forward by years in terms of technology. So much goes back to that movie.

[@alextainted]

Now I understand why the movie looked colder than I remembered. The original yellowish colors hit the nostalgia button just right.

[@SP95]

I still remember these 35mm tones at the cinema even if I was really young back then

[@ZetaReticuli1.]

It should be noted that this is the Czech print, even though it was in good condition, we aren't sure of what prints of TPM looked like in other countries, which could affect the color grade. Not to mention TPM would technically be only at 2K at most. Hope we can get another scan of this movie one day.

[@user-fy6bv]

Where you get the 35mm version?

[@wachinimagaming4898]

Phantom Menace already visually looked the most like the Original Trilogy, this just makes it blend in with those first 3 films even more

[@Ventdebou]

Looks so much better in 35mm. Look at the details on Anakin's face ! Brings me waaay back to the sensations I had in the theatre in 1999. Thanks for that 😊

[@tobymcpherson1006]

I really need to get my hand on a dvd box set. When I was younger my parents had a box that was half of vaders mask and I used to find a lot of fun lining up the reflection so it made a full picture

[@vivi1649]

Is it possible to download this power?

[@robertkolb2288]

Back in 1999 we were still using incandescent lighting for pretty much everything which gave a yellowish tone. Since LED lighting became prevalent with it's super white light, that yellowish tint became a thing of the past. Basically, for a film to look "updated" they remove that yellow tint for that new white light look. Personally, I prefer the natural light look of incandescence.

[@mynameisNeo369]

I get chills from every frame that is shown in 35mm its wonderful and i miss it

[@landonweldy5468]

Man they really put no effort into the 4k releases

[@newmedia2862]

It's a Lucas issue. Disney was just given this master from what I heard as these 4K masters were done shortly before the sell-off, and sadly they can't do anything about it due to Lucas having a strict clause in his contract. It's the same reason we can't have the Theatrical versions of the Original Trilogy available, cuz of Lucas.

[@DGCpicturesEntertainment]

Just imagine a Project 4K ‘99.

[@StarLord1994]

Wanna feel old? It’s been longer since this came out than it had been between a new hope and phantom menace. 😮

[@Federelli1]

This shows how important noise is in film (at least in 1999) to make (obvious) VFX shots less obvious

[@StarWarsStory]

Where can one acquire this beauty!

[@apotheosis21]

I am seriously impressed at how much better the CGI looks on 35mm, especially the droidekas.

[@crestofhonor2349]

It's the grain. It not only is detail but it also hides some imperfections

[@ReviveHF]

The problem lies with the colour grading in the post production, it doesn't matter whether the film was shot digitally or not.

[@Digital111]

6:24 Film fans when they see it was shot digitally. 6:26 Film fans when they see it was shot on film.

[@raz318]

Thank you for this! I recently put on The Phantom Menace on Disney+, and it kept bugging me because I didn’t remember the movie looking like it did. I remembered that The Phantom Menace out of the prequel trilogy, at least in color tone and grain, feeling more like the original trilogy. Now I know I’m not crazy!

[@jamesgravil9162]

"I remembered that The Phantom Menace out of the prequel trilogy, at least in color tone and grain, feeling more like the original trilogy" Not only that, it was the least CGI-ed of the prequels. Like the original trilogy, a lot of Episode I was shot on location, whereas nearly all the backgrounds in Episodes II and III were computer generated. Hence why those movies feel so artificial and, ironically, _dated_ compared to other films that came out at about the same time. (Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy uses comparatively little CGI and holds up remarkably well to this day. It actually looks better than The Hobbit movies, which came out more than a decade later and, like the prequels, went overboard with CGI.)

[@Gonig]

I wish the team from the 4K77, 4K80, 4K83 projects get their hands on TPM as well. That film look got destroyed with the terrible remaster and upscale for the blu-rays releases

[@Vanerrad]

hit in the nostalgia. remember right after attack of the clones came out and we had all those starwars games?

[@frankbizzoco1954]

I dont know where or how they came up with that puppet Yoda, but i can't believe how much better the 1980 puppet looked. Changing him to CGI to match the rest of the trilogy was one change i welcomed. With that said, i had a lot of fun being a star wars fan when this movie came out. Yes JarJar was annoying, and it wasnt as good as the OT. But the lightsaber battles kicked ass. Seeing those 35mm shots took me right back.

[@mykal.7424]

35mm actually looks better than what's shown here. 35mm can't be properly shown on TV screens ..People need to understand 4k Blu Ray isn't really 4k it's 2k. Not a fan of 4k Blu Ray . movies tend to get scanned and have film grain removed . Movies looked to be shot on video than film once the grain is removed . I'll stick to regular Blu Ray . The drastic changes usually are done when 4k disc are presented . More and more movies are looking worse in 4k because of the color grade is changed and the film grain is scrubbed to give a more modern look.

[@houstonhughes184]

4K blu ray is only 2K when a movie was either shot or mastered at 2K. Lots of 4K releases are actual 4K. Unfortunately not Lucas's SW movies.

[@Xuurls]

35mm looks a lot better. kinda reminds me of alien my favorite film

[@gblatt8472]

The print is obviously a little too green in places, but the texture is so much nicer.

[@sebastianmaharg]

That wig on Ewan McGregor at 0:44 is definitely state-of-the art.

[@ericmorneau7758]

A lot of these 35mm shots look like very well known promo pics from magazines and websites, like a lot of them. You sure there from a print?

[@watching..........6494]

This is so heartbreaking it goes from the official 4K wax figure looking skin to perfect pristine 35 mm just imagine what could have been stupid Disney !

[@PiperSparkles]

Why are you blaming Disney? lol. The movie has looked the way it does on video since the 2011 Blu-ray released under Fox. The current 4K appears to be an upscale of that same master but even if it wasn't, Disney didn't do any of it. Disney are using the 4K masters supplied to them from when they bought Lucasfilm. Disney is by no means a perfect company but it's hilarious how quick people always are to point the finger at them when half the shit they get blamed for isn't even their fault. Lucasfilm themselves (under George Lucas's leadership) were a lot more slipshod with quality control than anyone seems to want to remember. They were the ones who created all of the problems that still exist in the current 4K masters of the films. Darth Vader (or any members of the sith) never had a pink lightsaber until Lucas and co started fiddle-fucking with the colors and tinting of the films for the DVDs.

[@watching..........6494]

@@PiperSparkles YOUR WRONG

[@palpidious]

@@watching..........6494 The DNR was applied to the master of the first Blu-ray edition. And the 4K prequels are upscales.

[@watching..........6494]

@@palpidious NOPE , episodes 2 and 3 were but 1 was not !

[@watching..........6494]

@@PiperSparkles are you gonna cry nancy

[@randwilliams5552]

So I have Nvidia's video playback upscaler turned on, as I normally have background vids playing at 360p. I brought this video up for 1080p for a closer look, but it's still automatically kicking in during the Blu-Ray footage. It's smudging a lot of the edge wear on the sets and battle-droids, and distorting the shadows. For the Film, it's not even touching it. Even my GPU can tell the grain is needed.

[@BiggusWeeabus]

35mm with the 4K version's color grading would be the absolute ideal

[@jonathanpabon4477]

Maaaaan they really should have kept puppet Yoda

[@tomaskonvicka4135]

If I'm not mistaken, this film was shot on a digital camera. So if this is a scan from 35mm film, it was printed onto it from a digital source for distribution and then rescanned. Probably just a enthusiast project.

[@LaguRich]

One question: this is a comparison between the 4k 2020 version and the Blu Ray 2011 version or the DVD 2001 version?

[@BioFactory1]

35mm looks much more natural and cgi looks more realistic, 4k has better coloring of special effects, otherwise dull and pastey looking.

[@LinouGertz]

I'm not saying I want him to be unalived, but when he's no longer with us I really hope they re-release the films again in uncut/un-edited and without this ugly color filter over them. These films, and we fans, deserves so much better.

[@GameSack]

I don't think your print is a 100% accurate measure of how it looked. Your colors should be much more bold instead of so washed out. What scanner are you using and what type of light source does it have? What it does show, though, is how they scrubbed away all of the grain for the 4K version and it looks so... gross. Grain gives life to the image, I don't know why studios think people hate it.

[@TheElectroFalcon]

Where can we watch/ download the original film print?

[@YPAReviews]

The color space is light years better than the horrible singular color of the 4K presentation. The greys on 35mm are preserved in their correct color where the 4K replaces its greys with harsh blues. Why Disney decided to ruin the color is a baffling mystery to me.

[@gordongecko1975]

Disney had nothing to do with it. The actual color palette of TPM stems mostly from the 3D Re-Release in 2012 - so George Lucas himself ruined the colors and not Disney.

[@YPAReviews]

@@gordongecko1975 that doesn’t surprise me.

[@houstonhughes184]

@@gordongecko1975 and it never looked green like this in it's original run. If this comparison is real, then time has faded the print.

[@crestofhonor2349]

That green tint is wrong. That's film degradation due to poor film preservation

[@BrendanHenry]

Kind of reminds me that the prequels all ROCKED ON RELEASE. Jarjar was funny as hell in the theatre, the attack of the clones was incredible, and revenge of the sith was the most dramatic love story ever told. They only take a hit if you watch them critically, by yourself, alone.

[@LinkinMark1994]

By yourself, alone, or you know, with people that can no longer suspend their disbelief and enjoy things anymore…

[@DobDob]

How does one acquire the movie in the 35mm scan format 🧐

[@stephenjones9840]

Probably worth pointing out that the colours and saturation of the 35mm film will have changed over time. Apparently as film ages it can take on a more yellow/red hue and some of the colours will also appear less saturated.

[@Elemental_Entity]

35mm all the way!!!!