The Star Wars problem

[{ Emilia }]

I don't find the directing particularly exciting in any SW movie. And your vague "filmmaking competence" is obviously about more than this. The tone issue is just one of the many problems. I also find it astonishing how bland and boring the lighting in the prequels often is, with hardly any shadows. The typical shadow-free CGI HDR image.
Now lighting isn't strictly Lucas' job but as a "competent filmmaker" I figured he'd care.

I have this big tome full of stills from the OT and PT. Looking through that made me realize how dull the PT looks.

And again, just implying people who don't agree with you can't be objective is bad form.

 

[Ithekro]

And?
Are you implying that me, an audience member, is lying?

No, just in the minority. Like unapologetic Jar Jar Binks fans. They are rare.

 

[Shinzon4u]

I don't find the directing particularly exciting in any SW movie. And your vague "filmmaking competence" is obviously about more than this. The tone issue is just one of the many problems. I also find it astonishing how bland and boring the lighting in the prequels often is, with hardly any shadows. The typical shadow-free CGI HDR image.
Now lighting isn't strictly Lucas' job but as a "competent filmmaker" I figured he'd care.

I have this big tome full of stills from the OT and PT. Looking through that made me realize how dull the PT looks.

And again, just implying people who don't agree with you can't be objective is bad form.

I mean, the lighting in ANH is no different than the lighting in TPM, which was also shot on film. AotC and RotS were obviously digital, but I wouldn't call the lighting any less sophisticated in those than in ANH either.
One of the most interesting usage of lighting in the saga is actually at the end of AotC when Anakin and Dooku are fighting and the only illumination is the blue and red light of their blades.

I too have a product with a large collection of stills (a book called Star Wars: Frames) from the six films, and i'd say that all the films look similar lighting wise except for AotC and ESB. ESB has more complicated lighting set ups because of how over budget and time they went, and AotC used an earlier digital camera than RotS so even though the set ups themselves are the same, the color range looks more primitive.

 

[{ Emilia }]

I too have a product with a large collection of stills (a book called Star Wars: Frames) from the six films, and i'd say that all the films look similar lighting wise except for AotC and ESB. ESB has more complicated lighting set ups because of how over budget and time they went.

I think that's the book I have, too. It's funny how two people can look at the same pictures and come to different conclusions. I'm into photography (both as a model and photographer) so it always seemed pretty obvious to me how flat the PT's images look. Some of that is obviously due to overly high dynamic range in the CGI.

But anyway, this is getting kinda silly now arguing over minutiae. It's great if the PT works for you. I think it's an awful piece of filmmaking.

 

[Shinzon4u]

I think that's the book I have, too. It's funny how two people can look at the same pictures and come to different conclusions. I'm into photography (both as a model and photographer) so it always seemed pretty obvious to me how flat the PT's images look. Some of that is obviously due to overly high dynamic range in the CGI.

But anyway, this is getting kinda silly now arguing over minutiae. It's great if the PT works for you. I think it's an awful piece of filmmaking.

The biggest reason the PT looks worse in that book is because they sourced the images from the newest masters of the films, where both TPM and AotC have had DNR slathered over them, and AotC has had this awful green tint applied to it that makes the image look underexposed.
RotS looks excellent in that book IMO, there is exactly one shot with bad lighting. And TPM looks good, but could look better. AotC's master is a mangled mess.
The OT's masters were farmed out to Lowry Digital and look better because they were done by a specialized company.

 

[{ Emilia }]

NR doesn't exactly increase dynamic range. Like not at all. Different issue.

 

[Shinzon4u]

NR doesn't exactly increase dynamic range. Like not at all. Different issue.

As I said, AotC's main issue is it's functional under exposure.
Also TPM's colors look NOTHING like it did theatrically either. The theater master looked much different than the DVD, and the BD (current master) looks much different even from that.

And you keep saying "dynamic range". Don't understand what you mean in this context.

 

[{ Emilia }]

And you keep saying "dynamic range". Don't understand what you mean in this context.

It's a photography term. Different sensors/film have different dynamic range, especially depending on how you light a scene. Low dynamic range means that you quickly lose details in highlights and shadows because they're just white or black.
High dynamic range means many stops (as in f-stop / aperture), low dynamic range rolls off less smoothly in the highlights and shadows. In general a rather high dynamic range is good but when it's overdone you lose contrast because there are hardly any truly dark or light areas in the image.
It makes stuff look flat and dull when you can see perfect detail even in the darkest part of the images because there simply is no black.

 

[Shinzon4u]

It's a photography term. Different sensors/film have different dynamic range, especially depending on how you light a scene. Low dynamic range means that you quickly lose details in highlights and shadows because they're just white or black.
High dynamic range means many stops (as in f-stop / aperture), low dynamic range rolls off less smoothly in the highlights and shadows. In general a rather high dynamic range is good but when it's overdone you lose contrast because there are hardly any truly dark or light areas in the image.
It makes stuff look flat and dull when you can see perfect detail even in the darkest part of the images because there simply is no black.

I knew that, what I don't understand is how it applies.
TPM and RotS have plenty of true black to go around, AotC as I said has been mangled, and the OT was digitally darkened by GL in 2004 so that there is much more black in those films now then their ever was.
If the OT looks appealing to you in that sense it's because GL darkened them for the newest master.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Like I've said it's amazing how two people can look at the same images and come to such different conclusions. The CGI is obviously the worst offender when it comes to the HDR look but it's not just that.
Are we going to keep running in circles now?

 

[Shinzon4u]

Like I've said it's amazing how two people can look at the same images and come to such different conclusions. The CGI is obviously the worst offender when it comes to the HDR look but it's not just that.
Are we going to keep running in circles now?

I've presented new information to you now though. Since you explained what you meant about the DR, I informed you that the OT probably looks appealing to you because they were digitally darkened by George Lucas.
Also today is Lucas' birthday.

 

[{ Emilia }]

I've presented new information to you now though. Since you explained what you meant about the DR, I informed you that the OT probably looks appealing to you because they were digitally darkened by George Lucas.

Nope, the OT looks more appealing to me because the PT looks flat and overly HDR, especially in the CGI-heavy sceneries (read: almost all the time). That doesn't mean there aren't some examples obviously.

Dynamic range is not about darkening images. I'm not going to explain dynamic range again, because it feels rather absurd to discuss this one small issue. There are way more things that are wrong with these movies that Lucas had way more of a hand in than the lighting.

Again: If they work for you, enjoy them. You're clearly very invested so enjoy the enthusiasm! I will never watch them again. I've tried rewatching a while ago and just couldn't get through ROTS.

 

[Shinzon4u]

Nope, the OT looks more appealing to me because the PT looks flat and overly HDR, especially in the CGI-heavy sceneries (read: almost all the time). That doesn't mean there aren't some examples obviously.

Dynamic range is not about darkening images. I'm not going to explain dynamic range again, because it feels rather absurd to discuss this one small issue. There are way more things that are wrong with these movies that Lucas had way more of a hand in than the lighting.

Again: If they work for you, enjoy them. You're clearly very invested so enjoy the enthusiasm!

What do you mean, "nope"? You talked about not liking things looking overlit or too flat with no blacks or whatever, and I explained to you that the OT looked much more brightly lit before 2004.

 

[Tuskin38]

Oh I know, but George was not the voice director or the script writer in TCW and those are what mangled Anakin in TCW.

Lucas still approved all that.

 

[Shinzon4u]

Lucas still approved all that.

That's like saying he still approved ESB decisions.
If people don't credit him for the good stuff I don't have to credit him for the bad stuff.

 

[Tuskin38]

That's like saying he still approved ESB decisions.
If people don't credit him for the good stuff I don't have to credit him for the bad stuff.

Then you are lost.

 

[Shinzon4u]

Then you are lost.

This is the end for you, my master.

 

[Tuskin38]

I can honestly say that wasn't on purpose.
I realized it after I wrote it, but kept it anyways.

Probably subconscious.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

But that's like saying that ANH is not about the Empire vs. The Rebels, it's about Luke, Han and Leia, so the board room scene should have been cut out.

Nope.

 

[Shinzon4u]

Nope.

Are you noping that sentence in isolation (you don't want the board room scene cut out), or are you noping it as a response to that other guy?