Slashdot Mirror
Star Wars II (Attack of the clones) Trailer
tjansen writes "The Episode II Trailer is available.
You need be a starwars.com member to watch it and must have installed the Quicktime plugin though." I guess thats 2 strikes against me. Glad I saw it in front of Monsters Inc.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/
apple.com/trailers/. You still need the QuickTime plugin.
This is actually what the movie industry calls a 'teaser'. In todays movie industry, a trailer is the Cliff Notes version of the movie.
This teaser, on the other hand, is a series of snapshots of different scenes where some fx has been completed. It requires no music, editing, and is basically the cheapest, fastest thing Lucasfilm can put out at this point.
You can download it from here: http://starwars.apple.com/ep2/breathing/img/sw_ctp _320.mov
Should be a link to the medium sized file. The large one requires QuickTime pro.
For those either on Linux and unable to, or just hate Quicktime for some reason, Dark Horizons has links to these four mirror sites in .mpg format. Note that these seem pretty hosed as well though...
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
http://starwars.apple.com/ep2/breathing/media/pro/ ep2_breathing_m640.mov
.mov that it downloads.
/ep2/breathing/media/pro/ep2_breathing_m640.mov HTTP/1.1
Is the large version that requires Quicktime pro.
Quicktime will use your default proxy (on windows) all you have to do, is parse the proxy log for the 2nd
GET
Connection: keep-alive
Host: starwars.apple.com
Range: bytes=0-
Accept: */*
User-Agent: QuickTime (qtver=5.0.2;os=Windows NT 5.1)
http://starwars.apple.com/ep2/breathing/media/p
Is the large version that requires Quicktime pro.
Quicktime will use your default proxy (on windows) all you have to do, is parse the proxy log for the 2nd
GET
Connection: keep-alive
Host: starwars.apple.com
Range: bytes=0-
Accept: */*
User-Agent: QuickTime (qtver=5.0.2;os=Windows NT 5.1)
Most DLP projectors in theaters are 1920x1080, progressive scan (progressive scan 24fps version of HD's 1080i).
Most film editing systems run using 2k scans (2048 pixels across), so there's not any extra resolution available in the output from the production of the film.
Some effects houses use 4k scans for input to heavy effects scenes, but as a general rule thats beyond the capability of the film stock to hold. (A 35mm film frame is less than 1/2 the area of a 35mm print frame on your normal film camera, and those barely get any benefit from a 4k scan).
The gnutella network is a fine place to find an mpg version of this trailer, and as more people share it the mirrors will be more and more widespread. Peer to peer networks shine best in when they solve bandwidth problems by distributing the cost of mirroring popular data over the internet.
I recommend gnut, a text-based GPL'd gnutella client you can use over telnet or whatever, and you can even open a shell over top of it so you can continue interacting with the file system. it's the coolest.
It may be a good idea to search for "monsters" since the correct trailer (the one I found) was marked that way. Otherwise you might end up with the very well done forgery that has been circulating the net for a while.
Bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
That's Jango Fett flying, Boba's dad.
Boba Fett is just a kid in this movie, and is shown in the trailer as one of the clone kids sitting in the room with the blue helmet-thingys on.
Well, it's hard to say exactly what the resolution of film is, because there are many variables:
1) The film stock used makes a huge difference. Kodak has made incredible strides with their stocks (as has Fuji, for that matter). Their 800ASA stock has less grain than their 500ASA stocks of a few years ago. That said, there's a big difference between shooting 5245 which is a 50ASA stock and, say, 5279 which is a 320ASA stock -- the 45 is virtually grainless.
2) The format used makes a difference. There are many different ways of shooting 35mm film, all of which use different portions of the negative. Basically, the more neg you use, the less grain and the more resolution (because the less magnification you have to make to get it on the screen).
3) The exact post-production chain makes a difference as well. The more optical steps you have to go through, the more apparent the grain will be.
I believe that T2 was mostly scanned at 4K actually, which is higher resolution than most films done today. Pleasantville was done at 2K. However, the technology for printing digital files back to film has improved greatly since then, so it could definitely be done better now. Hopefully more films will be done at 4K in the future as hard-drive space gets cheaper (a big concern since film compositing is typically done uncompressed and with at least 10 and up to 16 bits per color channel per pixel, which means that even at 2K each minute of film is at least 11GB.)
A complete digital chain does indeed get rid of film grain. There are digital techniques that are just becoming available to eliminate grain on film originated material as well.
However, digital projection will, at least in the near term, bring about its own artifacts from compression, the lack of resolution, and some other things that are particular to the current technology (DLP can produce some strange flickering in certain colors due to the way it works). (All this is being worked on, of course).
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!