Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal — Page 37

Brooks said:

The 35mm film version sounds good.  The Silver Screen edition sounds nice too (like in the trailer).

Newer DSLR's don't have manual focus???  Is that true? 

we are using the canon hack software for control.

all the newer 10 and 12 megapixel and up cameras don't

allow for manual exposure without autofocus.

later

-1

negative1 said:

Brooks said:

The 35mm film version sounds good.  The Silver Screen edition sounds nice too (like in the trailer).

Newer DSLR's don't have manual focus???  Is that true? 

 

we are using the canon hack software for control.

all the newer 10 and 12 megapixel and up cameras don't

allow for manual exposure without autofocus.

later

-1

What model camera are you using? My new Canon 500d DSLR definitely has the option  of manual exposure without autofocus.

adywan said:

negative1 said:

Brooks said:

The 35mm film version sounds good.  The Silver Screen edition sounds nice too (like in the trailer).

Newer DSLR's don't have manual focus???  Is that true? 

 

we are using the canon hack software for control.

all the newer 10 and 12 megapixel and up cameras don't

allow for manual exposure without autofocus.

later

-1

What model camera are you using? My new Canon 500d DSLR definitely has the option  of manual exposure without autofocus.

we're not using a DSLR. we're using the point and shoot models

like this powershot:

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Canon-PowerShot-A720-IS-Digital-Camera-Review-15944.htm

also, it has to work with this software:

http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_for_Dummies

which allows the camera to be controlled via scripting

and timing parameters.

there's no point in shooting at higher megapixels, because the

disk space, and rendering time, along with resizing and scaling

make it much harder. also the difference when you render down

to 1080p isn't really that noticeable. only when you are working

with 10 bit raw files, and different color process is where the

workflow makes an impact.

later

-1 

Brooks said:

lucasdroid said:

Can you post the schematics for your mad invention so others may re-create and possibly improve on the effort? 

I would LOVE to see the video of the setup that negative 1 mentioned doing earlier (mostly because I'm a big nerd about that kind of thing, and it looks super neat).  You might could improve on it, maybe, but without a good print to work with what would you do with it??

edit: also, a video about the setup would make a nice extra on a dvd/bluray :)

And I didn't know there were any manual focus point and shoots.  Keep up the good work, we're all super psyched for it!

well, it could be used for other movies.. we've already got empire

transferred, and might do jedi..

anyways, unless you need it faster, you could improve the speed.

basically, you just need to buy a used telecine and modify that

with what you can work with (motors,etc). ideally a 35mm film

projector could be altered also.

yeah, i'll upload the video at some point.

there won't be any extras or features with the movie.

it doesn't need it. but we'll have all kinds of stuff for

download for people that want an archive of the jedi.com site,

and all the making of's and preliminary stuff. there's a few

hours worth of it. no point in filling it up on disc, when

that space can be used better for audio/video tracks.

later

-1

in the meantime, here are some still

shots of the machine:

=====================

later

-1

Brooks said:

You should definitely do Jedi!  Of the three original films that one was altered the most egregiously (I think).  Those changes are unforgivable.

my primary concern is star wars only.

there are others that will work on empire,

and possibly jedi. i might be loosely associated

with them. but that is too far into the future.

later

-1

If you're feeling on the fence about Jedi, consider doing a "just Lapti Nek" transfer, getting good copies of otherwise lost footage.  And Vader with eyebrows, and Vader's ghost, etc.

CatBus said:

If you're feeling on the fence about Jedi, consider doing a "just Lapti Nek" transfer, getting good copies of otherwise lost footage.  And Vader with eyebrows, and Vader's ghost, etc.

+1.  You could even capture at a higher resolution picture for the "lost" footage- if not for the blu-ray then for posterity.

PS When Star Wars is done, you should flood everywhere with it.  Newsgroups, torrents everywhere, 20 different copies on youtube, vimeo, a facebook page about it- the whole works.  Make it impossible to ignore...

CatBus said:

If you're feeling on the fence about Jedi, consider doing a "just Lapti Nek" transfer, getting good copies of otherwise lost footage.  And Vader with eyebrows, and Vader's ghost, etc.

good ideas. but its not my call.

if others want to work on it, i'm sure

they'll do the whole film if they can.

in the meantime, we can all start wondering

about a 4k version of star wars down the road,

for those new tvs!:

-----------------------------------------------------------

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/hdtv-superwidescreen-phillips-21-9-2-35-1-tv/post/583597/#TopicPost583597

later

-1

Joel said:

 

negative1 said

 

:there's no point in shooting at higher megapixels, because the

disk space, and rendering time, along with resizing and scaling

make it much harder. also the difference when you render down

to 1080p isn't really that noticeable.

I agree that bit depth is a bigger factor than pixel resolution in this process.

RE: Capturing at 1080p vs downscaling to 1080P - maybe this is true using the method you are using currently? Usually, video downscaled from 4k captures looks signifcantly better.

The only thing I would do differently here, with all of the time involved, as well as this expensive/rare film and equipment, would be to capture it in as high-res a format  as possible -at least film-grain resolution- to have the highest quality material to start with. Isn't that kind of the point of capturing the 35mm print in the first place?

 

we are saving the 4k scans, for future proofing the video when the time

comes. that is what we are using as our source, not 1080p or 2k.

we've done some quick tests with 4k video and

resampling it down to 1080p, and did not notice an

improvement over just using the 2k/1080p downsamples. of course we

don't really have a 4k monitor to see what it would look like at

native resolution. i'm sure there will be some higher resolution

monitors/tv coming out that will support that. but that's a moot

point as most people can't take advantage of it.

check out thorr's WQHD (2560x1600) trailer.. not too many

people can even view video at that resolution and compare

it to the 1080p version. it might be possible for a very large

screen.

----------------------------------------

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Thorrs-35-mm-Star-Wars-Trilogy-SE-Trailer-WQHD-Restoration/topic/13086/page/1/

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Thorrs-35-mm-Star-Wars-Trilogy-SE-Trailer-WQHD-Restoration/post/583821/#TopicPost583821

although there are people that have HD projectors, we are

also creating a full frame 1920x1080 version that will not be

squeezed or letterboxed. you will have to correct for that

yourself using the projector.

later

-1

negative1 said:

we are saving the 4k scans, for future proofing the video when the time

comes. that is what we are using as our source, not 1080p or 2k.

 

we've done some quick tests with 4k video and

resampling it down to 1080p, and did not notice an

improvement over just using the 2k/1080p downsamples.

Now I'm completely confused.

yes, you're right. i stated incorrectly it was 4 megapixels,

when i should have said 4k.. please read the next post.

thanks for pointing that out. it does get confusing!

later

-1

1990osu said:

negative1 said:

we are saving the 4k scans, for future proofing the video when the time

comes. that is what we are using as our source, not 1080p or 2k.

 

we've done some quick tests with 4k video and

resampling it down to 1080p, and did not notice an

improvement over just using the 2k/1080p downsamples.

Now I'm completely confused.

much like the problem with kb, KB, Mbyte , and megabytes.

resolutions are confusing.

approach 1

-----------------

the camera is 8mega PIXEL.. we capture the frames at 3500x2200

or something like that.... we then downscale the images down

to 1080p, which is 1920x1080 and then render it to video

True 4k is actually 8.8 megapixels

depending on how you define it:

-------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

digital cinema standards

standard          resolution        DAR    pixels

-------------------------------------------------------

digital cinema 4k - 4096x1714 - 2.39:1  7,020,544

digital cinema 4k - 3996x2160 - 1.85:1  8,631,360

academy 4k - 3656x2664 - 1.37:1 9,738,584

full aperature 4k - 4096x3112 - 1.32:1 12,746,752

====================================

QFHD is quad full HD, which doubles the 1080p,

which is closer to what we are using.

QFHD (3840x2160)

Quad Full High Definition (QFHD), at 3840 x 2160 (8.3 megapixels), doubles the 1080pHDTV standard (1920 x 1080 or 2.1 megapixels) in both the vertical and horizontal dimensions.

approach 2

========================================

or we can render video at this resolution, but we can't see

it at this native resolution, so we take this QFHD video,

and downscale it to 1080p and compare... there wasn't much

of a difference..

here's more on digital cinema specs:

==========================

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema

later

-1

In other words, each individual frame you are taking is somewhere in-between 2K and 4K res, but for coloring and cleanup work you are using a downsample because that will be faster and yield similar results to doing all your editing at the higher (let's call it 3K) resolution, only to have to size it down anyway at the end, for home video.

EDIT: Oh, I see.  So you really did do a real 4K transfer of this print?

negative1, I think your amazing contraption needs a name. :)

How about The Millennium Falcon?

1990osu said:

In other words, each individual frame you are taking is somewhere in-between 2K and 4K res, but for coloring and cleanup work you are using a downsample because that will be faster and yield similar results to doing all your editing at the higher (let's call it 3K) resolution, only to have to size it down anyway at the end, for home video.

yes, thats a better way of stating what i was trying to get at! phew..

here's a small image of what the differences in sizes are.. very

substantial!

later

-1