 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 2, 2018 - 10:09 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Col. Flagg
(Member)
|
I think there's technical reasons why matte lines look so terrible on television. I'm pretty damn sure the traveling mattes in Star Wars were not so obvious on the big screen.
Making matte lines work relied on a predictable film print gamma process.
It's pretty simple: the shooting stocks of the time (in the case of Star Wars, Eastman 5247) were manufactured to work with the release print stock of the time. The VFX shots were cut into the original negative (actually, Star Wars was an A/B roll job), and an interpositive is made. From this, several internegatives were made, and from the internegatives, thousands of release prints. Release print gamma, defined by an actual number, was a result of the combination of all these copying steps.
Transferring film to video has long produced unpredictable results, in part because the two mediums are not compatible, and because video transfers have historically relied far more on operator/colorist interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
" Fascinating ".
Thanks Saul!
Brm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
