How Attack of the Clones Revolutionized Filmmaking | The Birth of Digital Cinema 

Real video is analog. The digital tapes they use are more like DVDs that can be overwritten.

Because you can add in grain and texture with film post production software. Or you can scan the digital images into film, then scan back into digital format later on just like what Denis Villieneuve did with Dune movies.

The closest modern equivalent would be the virtual projection setup on the Mandalorian. Very fascinating tech indeed.

@@MotionArtsFilms A technology Lucas himself was involved in developing for his unproduced Star Wars live-action series. Imagine if it had been taken advantage of for the sequels, instead of returning repeatedly to deserts and forests.

Theres many, many things the sequels should have done differently....

After watching the sequel trilogy I understand how much Lucas loved the Star Wars.

“Pushed the boundaries” FOR THE WORSE.

Not to mention how they revolutionized visual effects. Cutting people out of shots, reframing them, comping in new elements. All of that had been done previously, but you never had entire movies constructed that way until then. The digital technology made that way easier.

@@MotionArtsFilms Yep, Lucas and Ben Burtt called that three-dimensional editing. That was actually one reason why Lucas used a lot more bluescreen from Episode II on. It made it easier to move everything and change the image the way he wanted. Very likely a lot of movies do that nowadays, but it's simply impossible to notice it.

@@SuperJumper40 David Fincher is always cutting together different takes, slipping performances to sync better, etc. Thats what's great about it, it doesn't have to be the big flashy stuff.

@@MotionArtsFilms and as a former ILM employee he is still showing respect to George Lucas 👏 👍

Doing chroma keys on 3:1:1 footage must have been a nightmare

@@MotionArtsFilms, ...and it is just simply wrong to say that they shot with fullHD (1920x1080). Since hdcam-tape does not record that resolution. With hdcamSR they could capture 4:4:4, which was FOUR TIMES the chroma information. Then chroma keying was a breeze. AFAIK, in Ep2 they used a hyge effort to artificially increase the resolution to make chroma keying work, but it resulted to massive amount of manual labor. Without the magic of ILM they could not have pulled the movie off, because so low quality "camera originals". Ans this is why nobody else tried to do that. I would even go as far as to say, that Ep3 was the first "real" digital cinema, qualitywise. You could have pulled just some digibeta or miniDV/dvcam/dvcpro stuff to the screen years before.

Steve Yedlin has proved that digital can be made to perfectly replicate the look of celluloid film using the proper algorithms. Celluloid film is now indisputably obsolete from an end-result standpoint.

@@nineleafclover Indeed. I've read about him a few months ago. Here is one very interesting video about his technique: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GHhi0ov0kBU.html&ab_channel=PostromoPictures

So sad that such a visionary who created the most celebrated movie franchise ever is somehow "underrated". It really just shows that we've gotten to a point where the toxic Lucas haters have become so loud that he needs to be considered "underrated". The man is nothing short of a genius, let's hope he doesn't stay underrated for long

It was a study THX did in the 90s. By the time you’ve made the several generations to get the release prints, along with the average quality of most projectors in theaters at the time, that was the effective resolution most audiences would see.

There’s a great section about it in the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy Archives book.

@@MotionArtsFilms thanks

Arri ran the same tests in a paper, the generational loss to a final release print from OCN > IP > IN > print is essentially 720p.

Not one of the best, but it has a lot of cool stuff in it.

@@B1ackout850 It is one of the best.

Compared to the other entries, it’s definitely not one of the best.

@@ghjpkshdgtjdgvbzm How so? It's the perfect balance between a character driven narrative and a plot driven one. And I swear if you bring up the romance...

No its pretty boring and bad, revenge of the sith however, now that's some good shit

Hey there. There are many factors that could be affecting the quality, despite the films being shot on 35mm. One of the biggest factors is the quality of the transfer (the process of scanning the film to convert to video). A lot of movies released early on DVD or Bluray tended to not look great because they showed all the flaws in the video transfer. But thats just one of many potential factors.

a lot of movies back then were also shot on 16mm film. ive seen IMBD list them as 35 and I know theyre not.

@@MotionArtsFilms Thanks for your answer.

@@flipnap2112 Thank you, yes, when filming in 16mm there is also a chance that they will look "weird". An example could be Wonder Years.

Source: “I made it up”

@@MotionArtsFilmsGoogle it, it’s the most basic fact.

It's weird that these videos on digital cinema never mention Vidocq. And it's a good movie, better than AOTC.

Livvakterna had its premiere before Vidoq.

@@ghostviggen also an Italian movie for TV but that another story, if we play this game, every movie shot in DV camcorder like Lars Von Trier Dancer in the Dark, could be consider as first movie shot in digital .

@@Meteotrance we could count from 1080/24P cameras. Of course Phantom Menace had two scenes filmed digital.

My mistake, 2000 not 2001

meh its the way it is. I still hear people saying they "taped" something. in fact I was watching a film with my work colleagues. now im an old man, and theyre pretty young. a part in the film came where they play that sound of a record scratching and the party comes to a halt. we talked about it. they all knew that sound, its used all the time. but they didnt know it was a vinyl record needle or that its a throwback to when someone at the party bumped into the player and it was a party foul.. you were bummed out.. funny how things live on

Think of all the software that still use a floppy disk icon to refer to saving a file :)

The last film Lucas directed was Revenge of the Sith, which was shot digitally. Lucasfilm used film for Episode7 and some of 8 and 9, but Rogue One, Solo and Mandalorian were all shot digitally.

No he never did

@@MotionArtsFilms JJ Abrams shooting on film was certainly a disgusting middle finger to George, coupled with the fact that there is significant evidence he rejected Lucas's outlines and then lied about it. The man gets worse the more I hear about him

George Lucas never went back to film. You don't have a clue!

Thats why Lucus decided to try digital he was worried about quality at first but after they researched they realized after all of the generations of film most movies went through, the final quality on the screen was about 1080p ish.

I see someone has been reading Paul Duncan’s Star Wars Archives as well :)

@@MotionArtsFilmsnope. Just saw it from some other YT video about digital cinema..

The unfortunate part of being an early adopter: the new technology you adopt quickly becomes outdated.

He was directing in the editing room. Worst mistake.

I bet you wouldn't even be able to tell which shots were manipulated in this way and which ones weren't. David Fincher does like 50% of his shots this way. It's no different than editing two close-ups from two different takes together as if they were part of the same human interaction, something which has been done since the dawn of cinema. All cinema is an artificially created reality, and always has been.

@@Mario_N64 that’s an interesting point, although directing from the edit seemed to work wonders for him in American Graffiti. Perhaps what he and Ben Burt call the 3 dimensional version of that took it a bit too far. Still, I want to commend him for at least trying something new. That’s a hell of a lot more than I can say for most movies.

one thing I learned from studying "New Hope" is that when George is left to his own devices it turns into a clusterfck of a nightmare. his wife saved the edit and they said it was TERRIBLY boring before that. Remember the first internal screening of phantom? that shot of George in the dailies room saying "I may have gone a bit too far in some places".. ha ha yep. the crap he added to the originals? all the goofy gags and jokes. Jawas falling off their creatures at mos eisley. theres a famous saying about "art is never finished, only abandoned" but George with all his money and technical power pushed and pushed and it got worse and worse. I respect the man and im not some jaded fan... but man he has a habit of over complicating stuff to the brink of failure.. its a shame. look at Han shooting greedo. that thing went through so many cycles, then in the end GEORGE is wearing a "Han shot first" t shirt.. well, at least hes done with it. nobody and I mean NOBODY could've fcked up the franchise worse than Kathleen. she takes the cake for total destruction

@@flipnap2112 I agree with most of your points, George has done some dumb shit with the Franchise, mostly in an effort to make it more kid friendly to get the real money selling toys. He eventually became surrounded by "yes" men, and no one insisted on another draft of the screenplays."It's gonna be great!" Was an oft used phrase in production. I disagree with your point about Marcia Lucas somehow saving Star Wars behind Lucas's back in the editing room. Frankly that is all fueled by an internet fanboy rumor during the era of prequel hate that led to a RU-vid video "how Star Wars was saved in the Edit," which is full of spurious nonsense and opinion. George was as much a part of the editing as any other aspect of "A New Hope." Nerdonymus does a great job of debunking and scathingly thrashing that video in his video ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-olqVGz6mOVE.html If you ask me it was Alec Guinness that saved Star Wars. It is well known that he rewrote his dialogue for all of the pivotal Obi Wan scenes. He essentially did an impression of his friend Alan Watts. His performance gave it the gravitas and really sold the idea of "The Force." Without that the movie wouldn't have inspired and captivated so many people. It makes it The Modern Myth. :}

It varies depending on the sharpness of film stock, but film can absolutely approach 8K if you’re scanning a high quality negative.

@@MotionArtsFilms Nope. At best 5.6K but it's 4K.

its all guestimation since "K" is referring to a digital measurement of pixel stacks. and even at that, we all know digital resolution means nothing in reference to quality. Remember the "megapixel wars" with Digital cameras? it was a race to the biggest chip and quality went down the tubes..back to film. I suppose if you could count grains and compare? but then grains are different sizes on different ISO film. and then what happens when you scan 35mm onto 8K scans? see what I mean. its film dude, its like saying that analog audio isnt equivalent to sampling rate of 96K. theres no sampling rate. its analog.

Yes it was

Cassettes can be digital or analog. HDCAM SR is a digital format.

You clearly don't understand the terms "analog" and "digital". There are analog video cassettes and digital video cassetes. Both is possible.

Very thorough rebuttal ;)

@@MotionArtsFilms i mean digital cameras were coming to the market, with or without Lucas. It realy doesnt matter who shot on them first... I still dont think he made any real impact on anything. There was a lot of stuff shot digitaly aside from what Lucas did. Before him making than movie and also after it... Just not cinema quality. So non of it is special. But of course nice that they did it and so on... Just, what Lucas did was not the revolution. The cameras was!

@@gundarsmiks4889 Sony was too slow for Lucas and he had to use a mix of film and digital for TPM and they finally caught up so he could do AOTC full digital. Without Lucas, the demand for digital wouldn't be as great and they wouldn't have been pushed to improve as quickly as they did.