Star Tours Film Quality SUCKS!

[DisneyFan25863]

Ok, so today, I got to go to the park for the first time since early June. I was impressed by all the shiny new paint and brilliant castle, but that all changed as soon as I went on Star Tours, which is probably one of my fav. rides. We were in cabin 3, and the entire time, the film would jitter, flick, and give us all sorts of artifacts. It also looked like it was delayed by half a second, which made me personally sick to my stomach. It was quite sad that they have let the ride get this run down. How much would it really cost to digitize the film and stick in some new projectors? It was just painful watching it.

Any rumors, hopes, or dreams on what may happen to Star Tours?

[Monorail Man]

Cabin 2 was fine for us last time we were there, and the quality was better. I wonder if they've referbed cabin 3 yet. :confused:

[Club 33]

There was quite a bit of talk about the "Soon Endor Wont Be The End-All" thing a while back. One of the scrolling LED signs in the attraction mentioned the above, however, many people say the ride has done that from the beginning. Is there any hope? I don't Know.

Also, the ride itself can make you sick to your stomache, whether it's off by a second or not.

[DisneyFan25863]

Also, the ride itself can make you sick to your stomache, whether it's off by a second or not.

I've never gotten motion sickness off that ride...ever. But seeing the movement and moving a different way makes you sick. We went on later and got a different cabin which was synced right, and I was fine.

[figment1986]

their is hope.. once Star Wars is done.. and disney wants to ponnie up the cash to upgrade the simulators... (quite a lot of cash i hear..) then lucas would be in talks of making a new destination... or few different ones.... (3 simulators... 3 slightly different movies...)

(I heard WDW's was gettng the same problem sometimes lately..)

[jsmith157]

Wasn't Star Tours one of Roy's arguments last year against Eisner? He had said that Lucas refused to work with Disney until Eisner was gone. It was supposed to be an issue similar to the one between Eisner and Steve Jobs. Apparantley Eisner can't play nice with his friends. Let's hope when he's gone that something happens huh?

[SoCal]

Kinda like the quality on the SOC film - blah

[Stare Girl]

I remember once I rode on SoC and the attraction was not synched. I was so sick that I had to close my eyes and do yoga breathing to calm my stomach. I was close to throwing up. My friend looked at me afterward and said she felt a little 'off' herself. That synching can make you sick if its even a hairsbreath off.

[Boingonut]

Film will ALWAYS look better then digital! I love the fact that Star Tours is still done in film. If it were put into a digital projector it would lose ALL of its depth of field and the screen would look very flat and fake and that would ruin the effect of the projection being a window into space. Even HD cannot come close to the depth of film and that is why most everything is still made in 16mm, 35mm, 60mm and 70mm film and not in digital video and not even in as much HD as you think (most HD channels show programs shot in film, its about 80% film and 20% digital video and HD). Film just looks better, you have more control over the image and it has a 100 year plus history in which the cameras and projectors have changed very little makes it very reliable. It sucks that they did not have a good print in #3 and the synching was off which I am sure can make one a little sick. But belive me it is small cost to pay since a digital projection would look really bad, even worse then a bad print and a digital projector could still get out of sync (I have seen it happen more then with film) so you would have a bad image and be sick and that would really suck! Digital sucks, Analog rules!

[captveg]

Film will ALWAYS look better then digital!

Not a 20-year old scratched up film.

most HD channels show programs shot in film, its about 80% film and 20% digital video and HD

And they look great projected digitally. Even something shot on film looks great when projected digitally. Why not project the original film of Star Tours digitally?

Digital sucks, Analog rules!

The differences are becoming much less noticable. More and more big name filmmakers are shooting on digital. Michael Mann shot Collateral on digital and the cinematography of the film is one of its highpoints.

Each way has its positives and negatives, but in the long run digital is gonna overrun film. The same thing happened with analog editing vs. nonlinear digital editing. Many resisted, but in the end nobody cuts a film on an editing board anymore. Digital is less expensive and more flexible.

And again, digital projection does not mean that the source doesn't have to be film. I actually think that a ride with a relatively small screen such as Star Tours would benefit from having digital projection. You'd have an image that would look wonderful without having to strike new prints of film.

Film looks wonderful when projected - on the first day. Go see any film in a theater 2-3 weeks into its release and the print has been ravaged. Digital projection doesn't have this problem. It would definitely save Disney maintanence cost for Star Tours in the long run to switch over to digital projection.

[Boingonut]

Oh and Same thing with SoC, that is a 70mm print which is the best projection in the world! The prints get old and have to be replaced but video tape gets messed up way faster then a film print when it is run over and over again. And no they would not do it on a DVD since it would compress the data making it look even worse. And if they did it on a hard drive they would have to worry about a computer crash.

BTW I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything I just want to let you know why things are still done in film. Since I eat breath and sleep filmmaking I can be quite opinionated on the subject.

[captveg]

Dude, I have a BA in film. I'm not talking out of my butt. Each of us, it seems, has a very good understanding of film.

Yes, 70mm is wonderful when the print is new. It is glorious. But I'm curious, why did you bring up VHS and DVD? No digital projection for a theater uses VHS or DVD. Have you ever seen a film projected digitally? It's awesome, IMO. Not as great as a perfectly pristine 70mm, but pretty damn close. Yes, there is a danger of a computer error for digital projection, but no worse than a mechanical projection error. Hundreds of theaters have digital projection now and they don't have a larger amount of problems than they do with film.

Specifically for Star Tours, digital projection would be, IMO, great. It's a relatively small screen with tons of replay for the print. Digital would work for it.

[Boingonut]

Not a 20-year old scratched up film.

And they look great projected digitally. Even something shot on film looks great when projected digitally. Why not project the original film of Star Tours digitally?

It is true that film can get pretty messed up, but I have to disagree with you about digital projection looking as good as film projection. A digital projection still cannot come close to the depth that film has. Why do you think that none of the mainstream theaters have yet to switch to digital?

The differences are becoming much less noticable. More and more big name filmmakers are shooting on digital. Michael Mann shot Collateral on digital and the cinematography of the film is one of its highpoints.

It is ok for him to shoot on video if he wants to, but it does not mean that most of the industry is going to be following him. The new Star Wars movies should have made the industry move more toward shooting on digital since they made a ton of money (even if they were not very good). So why is didn't they? Cause the fact is is digital may emulate film but it cannot be film and most filmmakers if they want something to look like film (which is most everything since people are much more used to and like the look of film then video) they are going to shoot it on film since it is really going to save a lot of time.

Each way has its positives and negatives, but in the long run digital is gonna overrun film. The same thing happened with analog editing vs. nonlinear digital editing. Many resisted, but in the end nobody cuts a film on an editing board anymore. Digital is less expensive and more flexible.

Actully film is only 4% more to make a movie with. See 10 facts, fact 2 It actully appers that film is making a bit of a comback with super 16 becoming more and more popular. Digital video was a fad it will come and it will go but film will still be there. It is great to have more options open with digital media. And flatbed editing and negitave cuting are still very alive. Most people just use nonlinear editing for TV. Movies unless they have a lot of effects like Matrix or Lord of the Rings are still done on a flatbed.

And again, digital projection does not mean that the source doesn't have to be film. I actually think that a ride with a relatively small screen such as Star Tours would benefit from having digital projection. You'd have an image that would look wonderful without having to strike new prints of film.

Size does not matter Depth does. Digital projection will not have more depth anymore on a small screen then on a large screen. And video tape will degrad
just like film dose (see my other post).

Film looks wonderful when projected - on the first day. Go see any film in a theater 2-3 weeks into its release and the print has been ravaged. Digital projection doesn't have this problem. It would definitely save Disney maintanence cost for Star Tours in the long run to switch over to digital projection.

Again not as much as you would think. I think it really sucks that Disney let an old print run on a ride. But really digital is not all that great in the pro maket. It has its uses but it is not going to replace 100 years of history just like that. Talk to me in 50 years and they maybe a form of video will have taken over.

[Boingonut]

Dude, I have a BA in film. I'm not talking out of my butt. Each of us, it seems, has a very good understanding of film.

Yes, 70mm is wonderful when the print is new. It is glorious. But I'm curious, why did you bring up VHS and DVD? No digital projection for a theater uses VHS or DVD. Have you ever seen a film projected digitally? It's awesome, IMO. Not as great as a perfectly pristine 70mm, but pretty damn close. Yes, there is a danger of a computer error for digital projection, but no worse than a mechanical projection error. Hundreds of theaters have digital projection now and they don't have a larger amount of problems than they do with film.

Specifically for Star Tours, digital projection would be, IMO, great. It's a relatively small screen with tons of replay for the print. Digital would work for it.

Cool anouther film geek, I love geting into these things with someone who knows what they are talking about, it makes it so much more fun! All right let me get to it.

I am working on my BFA in film/video at CalArts and I worked as a pro for about 4 years before deciding to get my lazy to school, so yes I'm not talking out of my butt eaither. I only brought up VHS and DVD for persons that may not be familiar with digital projection. And I have had some major problems with the digital projection (I'm a projectionist at my school). Mini DV, Digi beta, beta max, I have had a problem with them all. And all of the stuff that we use is new! Yet our 30 year old 16mm and 35mm projectors run great and I've had very few problems with them. All I am saying about digital is its flat look, I just have never seen a digital projection that does not look flat to me. That is not always a bad thing but for a ride such as Star Tours or SoC I would think you would need all the depth that you could get. Film provides that depth. And yes many people are in disagrement that are in the industry as to just home much this matters, I think it matters a lot.

But you are right about when something is digitaly projected well, there is nothing like it and it can be really great. But I still would take a good old print, scraches and all over a digital projection if the thing was shot in film. Digital anything just feels really cold to me. I even like analog video over it. So it really is up to the viewer which one the like, or don't like or what they are willing to put up with or not.

Man I need to go to bed, I'm getting all grumby and mean. :monkey:

[Stare Girl]

Cool anouther film geek, I love geting into these things with someone who knows what they are talking about, it makes it so much more fun! All right let me get to it.

And amateurs like me enjoy reading it when two people who know about it talk about it!

[Boingonut]

And amateurs like me enjoy reading it when two people who know about it talk about it!

Oh this is nothing! It could go on like this for days forever derailing this poor thread. Yeah um so....Star Tours, thats one hell of a ride, but I always get the new guy!

[captveg]

Man I need to go to bed, I'm getting all grumby and mean

Nah, you're just passionate.

I understand your viewpoint. I just think that the majority of people would rather not have scratches and film defects that come with running a print a lot (which is what this thread is complaining about), especially for a virtual experience that Star Tours provides. Like I said before, there are pros and cons to this situation. If it was Lawrence of Arabia I'd say 70mm all the way, but this isn't.

Digital anything just feels really cold to me. I even like analog video over it

Interesting. Do you really like VHS/LD over DVD? :confused: I mean, if I had the ability to have 35mm prints in my personal collection I'd watch film that way, but for Home Video digital simply makes sense.

Anyway, real quick, my bio - I got my BA in Media Arts, with a Critical Studies emphasis, from BYU in April '04.

Now, for the REAL tough question - Buster Keaton or Grace Kelly - who's more pleasurable to watch? Hmmmmmmm......

[dlrfanatic]

I must say, star tour's film does pretty good for its age compared to the much younger soarin'. The ride could benefit from a digital projection system though, since a phantom intrusion (this can be a bit of water from rain or a quarter) on entrance ramps doesn't prohibit the attraction from starting, it merely stops it 10 seconds in. When this happens the whole film needs to be cycled through before the attraction can be run again. A lot of those cabins could use some cosmetic work though.

[MiceMan]

Wow, I love reading passionate people arguing about something they love ... very interesting! And I love Star Tours ... but I have had the syncing be off and I got nearly sick .... Town Hall had several complaints from people in the same simulator as I.

[KevinYee]

Long ago I saw the Star Tours vehicles doing their thing from the outside. That was neat. You could see the film spooling around behind the vehicle itself.

And then, somehow I have this memory that in the intervening years, they started using laserdisc instead of film. It's a fuzzy memory, though, so it could be wrong. But laserdic would mean there shouldn't be scratches on film, etc.