It might sound weird, but the thing I really miss in cinema are movies with grainy, slightly worn picture, just like in the trailer. It had a certain charme that said "This is a world different than yours. Come in and experience it.". Today, everything is crystal clear digital 4K madness in 3D, with extremely wide silver screens.
actually newer ones are taller meaning if you watched this movie there's be black bars at the top and bottom just like on a television. It irritates me that the 16:9 trailers are bigger on the screen than the cinemascope movie.
that's the point, your tv has a 16x9 aspect ratio so when it displays a movie that's wider than your screen they have to shrink the image so it will fit, leaving the top and bottom empty. those extra wide movies were supposed to be projected on a screen with the same width, resulting in no shrinking and no black bars, but almost all new theaters are being made with the same aspect ratio as TVs so again movies are wider than the screen and have to be shrunk down and leave black bars.
The Phantom Menace was my first Star Wars Movie back when I was young. Yet for some reason, I never recall ever seeing this trailer. Gets me hyped every time!
I need the complete version dude. This is so nostalgic. I was 9 years old when i saw this movie for the first time at the cinema with my dad. I really need this version.
To all those saying it 'looks less fake', that's because this is a print several generations away from the negative. If you went to a theatre in the 90's, this was how movies generally looked.
@@megayetivsminigreatwhitex6194 Exactly. xD People are sucking up to these scans of film prints of the films and trailers while not being able to admit that the colours look wildly different because they're super faded 25 year old prints.
@@emoxvx even more is that some of these scans were processed in the wrong color space (wide gamut scan treated like sRGB/REC709) and most of the rest just randomly color corrected by eye not referencing the film that was scanned and in general no careful scanner calibration used a few are also of foreign prints printed on weird, old stock
Amazing! I haven't seen this trailer since it was released in Quicktime format on Apple trailers back in 1999. Anyway, I still remember that in this trailer, you can hear how Natalie's voice differs where as in the theatrical version, she very likely re-dubbed her voice.
Well if I remember correctly, the Quicktime trailers were about 30-100mb, depending on watch quality and resolution you wanted to download them at. In those days, I only had a 56k dialup modem at the time and it took about 3-4 minutes to download 1mb. Luckily, DSL was getting popular at that time, though still quite expensive, so you're able to download at much faster speeds at home but definitely not as fast as today in 2017. Still, I remember when I was a freshmen in 2001, our college had T3 lines and all the students hogged the bandwidth with downloads. :)
Also note that many of the visual effects that weren't living creatures were actually not done using CGI, but with physical miniatures, and at times even mostly complete sets, props, etc.
I’m not the biggest fan of the movie (and I was 12 when I saw it. Go figure.) But, I LOVE this trailer. I used to be obsessed with this trailer so much. It’s edited so well, and gets me so hyped! Regardless of how the film turned out, this will always be my favorite trailer of all the Star Wars films.
So many complaints about how the movies sucked, This one got me hooked into all of the starwars galaxy. and everything since then has just been added icing.
@@danielodeon4064 It would make sense, if there was ever a need for a "prequel special edition", it would be to re-render all that late 90s CGI, especially the creatures.
I remember being a kid, and being so amazed by this trailer. Shame the movie was nowhere near as good as this trailer. With all this grain, and grit...this feels like Star Wars.
Cap'n Peanut B. Crunch wow the original trilogy team really can recreate anything I mean they’ve done a fantastic job with the despecialised editions of the original trilogy itself so I can’t wait to see how they recreate how the prequels looked back in 1999, 2002 and 2005, thanks for the link 👍
@@SonofMrPeanut Any idea where I can download the early versions of that? or any version at all? I've contacted the author and looked everywhere but can't seem to find a link.
Oh my, I remember this like it was yesterday, more specifically, how I felt back then is just the same. It's the film grain, the movie actually looks better instead of being so freaking polished as Disney SW has become. It's like listening to an LP on vinyl after listening to the CD for so long, you forget just how special imperfections are.
The natural qualities of the film make the CGI look flawless. These days they often cover up CGI mistakes with shaky cam that it makes it impossible to enjoy the image.
Everything just looks way less fake than in the final movie. There was some sort of gloss and overall post enhancements that made even the real sets like Theed look like bad CG.
Insert creative username here If the movie had this look to it throughout the whole movie, maybe it would be at least watchable. But, that still doesn't take away the fact that the film still would have many other problems. Like story and other details like that.
Fake Name They probably used some DNR or something along the lines of that for the HD version. Even with the DVD (I've only seen clips from the HD version. It's not like it's a film I wanna watch often anyway) something seems off visually. I'm thinking maybe something was changed during post-production or it might just be the way I'm seeing it. I don't know; I might need new glasses or something.
because trailers are often made more quickly and cheaply than full releases so often the 35mm trailers are a bit softer than the actual movie release on 35mm for one because this has a 2K DI so it won't have real 4k details (although 4k still is better since it gives oversampling so you capture every last bit of the full 2k detail and you really need at least 4k to properly capture the grain structure of this sort of print film stock and viewed at 1920x the grain won't be as natural and the image won't seem quite like projected film did and I think this might have been done with an early scanner AND youtube tends to compress the heck out of everything and softens stuff up compared to the original upload
I think the HDR treatment would make this about 10x better. Currently, it's far lower quality than the excellent project 4k remakes of a new hope and return of the jedi. Could also be the TH-cam compression, I suppose. Those 4k films are 80GB each. Lol.
The gritty, grainy (proper) film look here is so much better than the clean, shiny, overly saturated and tinted color effects we get now. Even naff CGI looks better when printed to 35mm. Digital is a fail for movies. Bring back film!
Great trailer, such a shame the movie had to come along and ruin it. But then, the unwatchable sequel trilogy makes the disappointing prequel trilogy seem genius by comparison.
Scan in the live action shot on 35mm with a film scanner. Combine the digital scan of the film with the CGI on a computer. User a special laser film printer to print out the finished combined digital file back onto 35mm film.
Not sure I see the point here. Resolution wise, the footage seems maybe 720p max in terms of resolvable details. Obviously you're losing color detail and gaining grain as well. But my biggest issue: Why make a 4K version of a film with so many effects shots that were mastered digitally, and thus all limited to the resolution they rendered it out to (probably 1080p or close). If my experience with pre-HD TV shows on blu-ray hold true, you'd only be getting the full resolution potential of 35mm (which you're not any way, it's far too blurry) whenever there arn't any effects or mattes composited in and even then it's possible the entire thing existed as a digital file.
Karsten Von Fjellheim force awakens was shot in 70mm imax as well as 35mm film. rogue one was in 4k. last jedi is in 70mm imax. the 9th movie will be in 70mm imax.
this looks like absolute garbage, not even 8mm resolution and the worst possible transfer. it honestly looks like a bad instagram filter, which i almost suspect it is. whoever made this should be ashamed and whoever says this looks like actual film is just wrong. this is NOT what 35mm film looks like in a real projector. not now, not then, not ever.
Not the best encode, I'll admit. Resolution is also hampered by the fact that this was a FLAT trailer, rather than SCOPE. Here is the same scan, re-rendered this morning with better settings: th-cam.com/video/eSG3dxJI2vU/w-d-xo.html Still think it's an instagram filter?
@@TheStarWarsTrilogy77-83 honestly, yes. but it might simply be a combination of soft image (massively sized grain among other things making the image look almost slightly out of focus) and watching digitally scanned actual analog film on a "back projected" digital screen (also heavily compressed by youtube) instead of front projected on a silk screen directly from the 35mm print. i was mostly joking about the "should be ashamed" part, but i still don't think it looks like actual film which, like i mentioned, might very well be a combo of several things out of your control. no offence!
but i guess i have to apologise for the whole comment after seeing the official remaster trailer (th-cam.com/video/J3kyYFHdRsM/w-d-xo.html) as it looks like it has the same instagram filter. seems like that's just the way the original actually looks. i must be getting old because i clearly remember it looking very "digital" in cinemas when it came out. anyway, sorry :(
It wasn't. This was the last Star Wars movie to be shot on film. Episode II and Episode III were shot entirely in digital at 1080p and then cropped down to around 800p to make a wider aspect ratio.
@@SegaFanatic5188 This movie was shot on both 4-perf, 35 mm color negative film and HDCAM, which is a digital HD format with 1440x1080 resolution, 3:1:1 sampling ratio, YCbCr encoding, 10-bit quantization with 8-bit samples actually recorded, and 144 Mbps of bandwidth. The first and second movies of the prequel trilogy were shot this way, with the last of the prequels being shot entirely on HDCAM SR using an HDC-F950 camera that used true anamorphic prime lenses.
Nuclear Armament One shot was shot digitally, the one where Qui-Gon takes a sample of Anakins blood. The rest was all on film. The rest is pretty much what I said.
@@SegaFanatic5188 Interesting, I had no idea only one shot in the movie was done digitally. I am actually glad that's the case, because cropping just to get an aspect ratio is just wasting resolution that's already not high enough with an HD camera.
It might sound weird, but the thing I really miss in cinema are movies with grainy, slightly worn picture, just like in the trailer. It had a certain charme that said "This is a world different than yours. Come in and experience it.". Today, everything is crystal clear digital 4K madness in 3D, with extremely wide silver screens.
I get you (I don't entirely agree but I sometimes do miss that). Though aren't the silver screens just as wide as they used to be since the 50s?
Get a projector and you can have that same kind of feeling!
actually newer ones are taller meaning if you watched this movie there's be black bars at the top and bottom just like on a television. It irritates me that the 16:9 trailers are bigger on the screen than the cinemascope movie.
Jon Doe black bars are always present on any movie I watch on tv.
that's the point, your tv has a 16x9 aspect ratio so when it displays a movie that's wider than your screen they have to shrink the image so it will fit, leaving the top and bottom empty. those extra wide movies were supposed to be projected on a screen with the same width, resulting in no shrinking and no black bars, but almost all new theaters are being made with the same aspect ratio as TVs so again movies are wider than the screen and have to be shrunk down and leave black bars.
The Phantom Menace was my first Star Wars Movie back when I was young.
Yet for some reason, I never recall ever seeing this trailer. Gets me hyped every time!
The colour's in the 35mm films always look amazing.
Dude, be for fucking real, they look SUPER faded. It's a 25 year old print.
Actually looks like a proper star wars film here, would love a complete 35mm version
D zu
Yea the theatrical release
Not even the original Star Wars films look like Star Wars anymore.
I need the complete version dude. This is so nostalgic. I was 9 years old when i saw this movie for the first time at the cinema with my dad. I really need this version.
the closest one to the og 35mm film is Laser Disc with OG Audio
To all those saying it 'looks less fake', that's because this is a print several generations away from the negative. If you went to a theatre in the 90's, this was how movies generally looked.
no, this is not how it looked in the theaters back then. the grain looks like 70's 80's movies, and this whole thing looks like a fake filter.
@@KronStaro Yeah, you're right. I remember seeing this trailer before Wing Commander in 1999, and it looked pristine.
@@KronStaro I saw it in theaters several times back then, and it definitely looked like this.
@@KronStaro No, it looked very close to this. More more real and gritty.
and it was great
I loved this movie. I especially love this trailer and it's vintage 90s colour.
The colors had a lot more pop though, way more, it was a pretty vibrant film. This is not at all what it looked like in '99.
@@megayetivsminigreatwhitex6194 Exactly. xD People are sucking up to these scans of film prints of the films and trailers while not being able to admit that the colours look wildly different because they're super faded 25 year old prints.
@@emoxvx even more is that some of these scans were processed in the wrong color space (wide gamut scan treated like sRGB/REC709) and most of the rest just randomly color corrected by eye not referencing the film that was scanned and in general no careful scanner calibration used
a few are also of foreign prints printed on weird, old stock
I miss 35mm film!
Amazing! I haven't seen this trailer since it was released in Quicktime format on Apple trailers back in 1999. Anyway, I still remember that in this trailer, you can hear how Natalie's voice differs where as in the theatrical version, she very likely re-dubbed her voice.
Well if I remember correctly, the Quicktime trailers were about 30-100mb, depending on watch quality and resolution you wanted to download them at. In those days, I only had a 56k dialup modem at the time and it took about 3-4 minutes to download 1mb. Luckily, DSL was getting popular at that time, though still quite expensive, so you're able to download at much faster speeds at home but definitely not as fast as today in 2017. Still, I remember when I was a freshmen in 2001, our college had T3 lines and all the students hogged the bandwidth with downloads. :)
I don't think her voice was redubbed, it was simply modified in post to sound deeper when she was in queen outfit.
The CGI definitely looks better here. I'd love the see a film version of the legendary teaser from 1998.
Yeah.
Mind you, I'd also like to see a better-written, better-directed version of this film, but meh, what can we do.
Also note that many of the visual effects that weren't living creatures were actually not done using CGI, but with physical miniatures, and at times even mostly complete sets, props, etc.
@@iLikeTheUDK and I wanna live in a world where star wars fans didn't ruin the franchise for me, but we can't have everything.
@@iLikeTheUDK It's better than Last Jedi.
@@codyj.braunva5406 :D
one of the best edited trailers in history
Had to re-watch this again to remind myself of good Star Wars after sitting through The Acolyte.
Takes me back to watching this in QuickTime on my Pentium PC, believing this was going to be the greatest movie I would ever see.
I’m not the biggest fan of the movie (and I was 12 when I saw it. Go figure.) But, I LOVE this trailer. I used to be obsessed with this trailer so much. It’s edited so well, and gets me so hyped! Regardless of how the film turned out, this will always be my favorite trailer of all the Star Wars films.
Best trailer of episode 1 !
So many complaints about how the movies sucked, This one got me hooked into all of the starwars galaxy. and everything since then has just been added icing.
Film grain! I love this, it makes it look like a film again and not a computer file.👍👍👍
Should we be expecting a 4k99?
i believe someone is actually working on it on the original trilogy forums.
No. The movie was shot digital in 1080p
@@rhineriversurf5594 that was 2 and 3. Episode 1 was shot on film
@@YoungButRetro but it had a 2k digital intermediate. The film would have to be rescanned and the effects recomposed.
@@danielodeon4064 It would make sense, if there was ever a need for a "prequel special edition", it would be to re-render all that late 90s CGI, especially the creatures.
I still get chills today as i did back then.
I remember being a kid, and being so amazed by this trailer. Shame the movie was nowhere near as good as this trailer. With all this grain, and grit...this feels like Star Wars.
not to the mention the movie being a steaming pile of garbage, as opposed to the finely edited piece of excitement set to original trilogy music.
Can somebody the whole movie like this? I'd love to see someone do it!
Cap'n Peanut B. Crunch wow the original trilogy team really can recreate anything I mean they’ve done a fantastic job with the despecialised editions of the original trilogy itself so I can’t wait to see how they recreate how the prequels looked back in 1999, 2002 and 2005, thanks for the link 👍
@@SonofMrPeanut Any idea where I can download the early versions of that? or any version at all? I've contacted the author and looked everywhere but can't seem to find a link.
The things I'd do to have the whole movie in this picture quality.
This looks much detailed than the bluray picture.
I remember how big a deal it was when the teaser was released online
Oh my, I remember this like it was yesterday, more specifically, how I felt back then is just the same. It's the film grain, the movie actually looks better instead of being so freaking polished as Disney SW has become. It's like listening to an LP on vinyl after listening to the CD for so long, you forget just how special imperfections are.
Dude .. this is so nostalgic. I need the complete version. Really. I want the complete version. I can pay for it.
classic trailer... and classic movie!
Notice they also used original trilogy music in the trailer making it more exiting and familiar but we know the movie had other ideas
No, they don't usually compose the music for a film until a few weeks before it's release. They didn't have any other Star Wars music at the time lmao
This movie was the last Star Wars movie shot on film. I'm curious if this movie was worked in 1080p and put on 35mm.
for those who remembers how movies were in cinemas
Could you please do 4K99? Yes the movie is flawed but it's Star Wars and I would love to see the movie remastered with this film look!
i believe someone is working on it on the original trilogy forums.
Can you release any full movie that was shots on in this format ...loving the quality i would watch it
it's fucking beautiful IMO
I need the complete version. I have money.
It's so sad -- you can really see how they're the last movies.
The CGI actually looks Better this way
2:16 I thought this was gonna be the great purge of the Jedi.
The natural qualities of the film make the CGI look flawless. These days they often cover up CGI mistakes with shaky cam that it makes it impossible to enjoy the image.
Everything just looks way less fake than in the final movie. There was some sort of gloss and overall post enhancements that made even the real sets like Theed look like bad CG.
Insert creative username here If the movie had this look to it throughout the whole movie, maybe it would be at least watchable. But, that still doesn't take away the fact that the film still would have many other problems. Like story and other details like that.
Insert creative username here The Blu Ray applied some sort of automatic grain removal, which ended up making it seem like plastic.
Fake Name They probably used some DNR or something along the lines of that for the HD version. Even with the DVD (I've only seen clips from the HD version. It's not like it's a film I wanna watch often anyway) something seems off visually. I'm thinking maybe something was changed during post-production or it might just be the way I'm seeing it. I don't know; I might need new glasses or something.
RockGeek Studio's/Records They fucked up the color correction, giving everything a slight shade of purple/blue.
Fake Name That makes sense actually. I've been watching clips to check my sanity and now I see it.
Didnt the reels for this movie have decoy titles on the shipping labels and film cans for security reasons?
Now only if someone will do this for the whole movie so we can get the theatrical release in 4k
Why can't I download this video?
that wilhelm scream though
i saw this before wing commander and matrix
It's amazing how well film hides the 90's-era CGI. It blends so much better even in this degraded presentation.
"Nooooooooooooooo!"
You guys take forever on all of these
This one may take forever because we're not even working on it. This is just a 35mm theatrical trailer,.
OH that makes alot of sense considering we are getting the 4K box set on May 4th 2020
Seems more like 16mm to me. I bet there was an internegative in 16mm for splicing the trailer together at least - it's really low resolution.
why is it 4K? it looks like HD at best.. film isn't supposed to be that blurry
It’s because it hasn’t been cleaned up yet
because trailers are often made more quickly and cheaply than full releases so often the 35mm trailers are a bit softer than the actual movie release on 35mm for one
because this has a 2K DI so it won't have real 4k details (although 4k still is better since it gives oversampling so you capture every last bit of the full 2k detail and you really need at least 4k to properly capture the grain structure of this sort of print film stock and viewed at 1920x the grain won't be as natural and the image won't seem quite like projected film did
and I think this might have been done with an early scanner AND youtube tends to compress the heck out of everything and softens stuff up compared to the original upload
This movie looks sick!
**one hour on Tattoine later**
The Phantom Menace is a Masterpiece.
I think the HDR treatment would make this about 10x better. Currently, it's far lower quality than the excellent project 4k remakes of a new hope and return of the jedi. Could also be the TH-cam compression, I suppose. Those 4k films are 80GB each. Lol.
The prequels were shot digital in 1080p
Rhine River Surf actually phantom menace was shot on film. The next 2 were shot in digital.
Sadly been shot on set on 1080p digital Sony camera 😢
It’s like watching your wedding video after filing for divorce...
can u do the teaser from 98
someone is doing the teaser
it's getting test scanned currently
The gritty, grainy (proper) film look here is so much better than the clean, shiny, overly saturated and tinted color effects we get now. Even naff CGI looks better when printed to 35mm. Digital is a fail for movies. Bring back film!
Star Wars The Bleach Bypass
streglof bleach bypasses look nice imo
c 1999 Lucasfilm LTD. (LFD)
c 1999 Disney Enterprises inc.
TÄHTIEN SOTA 1 PIMEÄ UHKÄ
Is there a way to watch it like this?
Not with a Jedi...
Great trailer, such a shame the movie had to come along and ruin it. But then, the unwatchable sequel trilogy makes the disappointing prequel trilogy seem genius by comparison.
.........Pretty sure the prequels were filmed on digital not 35mm film??
nope. this was filmed on 35mm. episodes 2 and 3 were completely digital, and rogue one one, solo, 7, 8, and 9 were shot on film and digital i believe
It's ironic, because this film was shot in 1080p HD digital cameras.
Nope, it was shot on film. 2 and 3 were shot on digital cameras.
how exactly was the CGI transferred on to the 35mm? Doesnt 35 mm record only live action? seems like some fakery to me.
Scan in the live action shot on 35mm with a film scanner.
Combine the digital scan of the film with the CGI on a computer.
User a special laser film printer to print out the finished combined digital file back onto 35mm film.
how is the combining done?@@rtp5768
Not sure I see the point here. Resolution wise, the footage seems maybe 720p max in terms of resolvable details. Obviously you're losing color detail and gaining grain as well. But my biggest issue: Why make a 4K version of a film with so many effects shots that were mastered digitally, and thus all limited to the resolution they rendered it out to (probably 1080p or close). If my experience with pre-HD TV shows on blu-ray hold true, you'd only be getting the full resolution potential of 35mm (which you're not any way, it's far too blurry) whenever there arn't any effects or mattes composited in and even then it's possible the entire thing existed as a digital file.
The Phantom Menace will just look worse over time, it was shot in 2K.......
You are right, I was wrong.
Karsten Von Fjellheim force awakens was shot in 70mm imax as well as 35mm film. rogue one was in 4k. last jedi is in 70mm imax. the 9th movie will be in 70mm imax.
CaptainRidley episode IX will have parts shot in imax
this looks like absolute garbage, not even 8mm resolution and the worst possible transfer. it honestly looks like a bad instagram filter, which i almost suspect it is. whoever made this should be ashamed and whoever says this looks like actual film is just wrong. this is NOT what 35mm film looks like in a real projector. not now, not then, not ever.
Not the best encode, I'll admit. Resolution is also hampered by the fact that this was a FLAT trailer, rather than SCOPE. Here is the same scan, re-rendered this morning with better settings: th-cam.com/video/eSG3dxJI2vU/w-d-xo.html Still think it's an instagram filter?
@@TheStarWarsTrilogy77-83 honestly, yes. but it might simply be a combination of soft image (massively sized grain among other things making the image look almost slightly out of focus) and watching digitally scanned actual analog film on a "back projected" digital screen (also heavily compressed by youtube) instead of front projected on a silk screen directly from the 35mm print. i was mostly joking about the "should be ashamed" part, but i still don't think it looks like actual film which, like i mentioned, might very well be a combo of several things out of your control. no offence!
but i guess i have to apologise for the whole comment after seeing the official remaster trailer (th-cam.com/video/J3kyYFHdRsM/w-d-xo.html) as it looks like it has the same instagram filter. seems like that's just the way the original actually looks. i must be getting old because i clearly remember it looking very "digital" in cinemas when it came out. anyway, sorry :(
It was shot digital though!
It wasn't. This was the last Star Wars movie to be shot on film. Episode II and Episode III were shot entirely in digital at 1080p and then cropped down to around 800p to make a wider aspect ratio.
@@SegaFanatic5188 This movie was shot on both 4-perf, 35 mm color negative film and HDCAM, which is a digital HD format with 1440x1080 resolution, 3:1:1 sampling ratio, YCbCr encoding, 10-bit quantization with 8-bit samples actually recorded, and 144 Mbps of bandwidth. The first and second movies of the prequel trilogy were shot this way, with the last of the prequels being shot entirely on HDCAM SR using an HDC-F950 camera that used true anamorphic prime lenses.
Nuclear Armament One shot was shot digitally, the one where Qui-Gon takes a sample of Anakins blood. The rest was all on film. The rest is pretty much what I said.
@@SegaFanatic5188 Interesting, I had no idea only one shot in the movie was done digitally. I am actually glad that's the case, because cropping just to get an aspect ratio is just wasting resolution that's already not high enough with an HD camera.