Synnöve said:
If you know someone with a NUKE license you could ask them to try using the matchgrade node on a few clips.
I would love to know someone that has that program. I watched the demo on youtube and it looks pretty cool.
PDB said:
While I was reading this, I was wondering if it would be possible to DNR the Pan and Scan to remove the noise and reduce the clumping of the colors. That way you have little detail/noise but should maintain the colors.
I tried that, too, before my previous post. It over-smoothed and the result looked like the LD. :D We (I) really shouldn't be testing with JPEGs, which doesn't help the noise factor.
Looking back at it, I noticed the alignment was off. Apparently the 2 frames were out-of-sync or the LD frame was horizontally warped. I had to split LD, differently resize each half, then rejoin them to force alignment with Blu. My 2nd test series is made from that (keeping in mind not to over-smooth).
With a better alignment, each was H-S-L separated ..
.. and re-joined (the yellow outlined ones -- Hue & Saturation from Laserdisc for the desired color; Lightness from Blu-ray for the desired detail) without de-noising that first time ... just for procedure's sake (it's the scientist in me):
Actually, this doesn't look as shockingly bad as in the previous series. Maybe the alignment was a factor? Unacceptable noise, though.
Next I tried smoothing the LD, thinking it's noise was the culprit (can't blame a Blu-ray cap, right?). The Median Filter (value = 7) in the paint program created a strong blur to smear those color veins back into the rest of the flesh. The result after H-S-L recombination was:
Well, that was an improvement, but still unacceptable. Looking closer at the original Blu-ray revealed a weird type of noise -- like it was over-processed at some stage. I would try to de-noise that, but more carefully, for this next recombination.
My favorite de-noising tool is JPEG Artifact Remover. It targets small areas of "out-of-place" pixels, the kind JPEG compression creates, without touching clearly "properly-in-place" ones. It's quite amazing on any kind of noise (regardless of which approach you use, I'd recommend applying something like this to the Blu-ray source anyway). I set it to High, the 3rd of 4 levels. A light Edge Preserving Smooth was used to take care of open areas (yes, it still needed it). With both H-S and L smoothed it their various ways, the result was:
Ah ... good for de-noise, bad for de detail. This was where I was when I concluded the sources just wouldn't work well together. Maybe because the one was light and the other dark.
Then it hit me -- the previous end results were too dark to match the Laserdisc without post processing anyway. Why not adjust Blu-ray's Lightness-separation as an additional step just before recombination!? We want the detail of the Blu, which isn't altered with a brightness change! The resolution and it's detail stays the same. So that's what I did ..
It was easy. Only 2 settings on the paint program's Histogram (Gamma = 1.25, Midtones = -4) to bring the Blu Lightness range (on the right) in line with the LD Lightness (on the left). Recombining this Blu L (no noise reduction) with previous LD H-S (with noise reduction) produced this:
Now that's more like it ... in both ways! A spot-on match to the Laserdisc (of course) AND a lower noise level without de-noising the Blu-ray. However, with a little Blu de-noising (just JPEG Artifact Removal this time), it looks even better but with a little softness (let's blame that necessity on the noisy sources, okay?):
.
So, having said all that ... and in consideration of snapshot degradation from multiple re-encodings and re-sizings ... here's my RGB-histogram color-correction:
to match this Pan&Scan Laserdisc
Histogram color-correction directly to Blu-ray
And ... Color-correction wins.
Unless HSL demands a rematch with original sized, non recompressed sources.
:)
I am still perplexed by the appearance of "recombination noise". In my assorted proof-of-concepts of the HSL-mix technique, I haven't come across this kind of anomaly. (Although it did prompt the further development of the process -- normalizing the Lightness spectrum between the sources. That alone was worth the work.)
Can you link to non-recompressed, full-sized caps in .PNG format of that exact frame from the Blu-ray (1920x1080) and the Criterion (letterbox) Laserdisc (720x480)? Even if you're not going to consider this approach, I'd like to look into the problem. (Thanks.)
Spaced Ranger said:
I am still perplexed by the appearance of "recombination noise". In my assorted proof-of-concepts of the HSL-mix technique, I haven't come across this kind of anomaly. (Although it did prompt the further development of the process -- normalizing the Lightness spectrum between the sources. That alone was worth the work.)
Can you link to non-recompressed, full-sized caps in .PNG format of that exact frame from the Blu-ray (1920x1080) and the Criterion (letterbox) Laserdisc (720x480)? Even if you're not going to consider this approach, I'd like to look into the problem. (Thanks.)
Thanks for the demo and hard work Spaced Ranger. Sorry for the late response, I've been out of town. That's a great detail technical read. Unfortunately, I can get you PNG for that scene with the Blu-ray and Pan and Scan laserdisc. I don't have that particular scene yet with the Criterion yet (only have a copy of the first side so far). But when I get it I will send it your way. If noise is the problem, the Criterion may not be much more help since it is very soft and noisy.
Following up what captainsolo said about the Director's Cut laserdisc, Jonno did some research and found some interesting information in Sammon's Future Noir: Making of Blade Runner:
"There was a last-minute processing error affecting theatrical prints, so some reels looked darker than others.
On the subject of the CAV DC laserdisc, Sammon is quite a fan. In fact he goes so far as to say, "The imagistic and audio qualities of this disc far surpassed those of the BRDC seen in motion picture theaters!"
More specifically, The CAV BRDC laserdisc features warm colors and rich hues that faithfully reproduce the original Blade Runner theatrical viewing experience far better than prior video editions. "
The warmer colors comment is funny since that is the way the other LDs look and totally contrary to the BRs which are clearly darker and colder.
PDB said:
I don't have that particular scene yet with the Criterion yet (only have a copy of the first side so far). But when I get it I will send it your way. If noise is the problem, the Criterion may not be much more help since it is very soft and noisy.
Thanks -- whenever you can grab'em!
Up until now, noise hasn't been any problem at all for the color (H-S) source. I once made a test H-S-L mix from a half-size, compressed, color YouTube video and the full-size, quality broadcast, B&W TV capture:
It looks just great, even into the shadows! Granted, the overall look of each source was the same (same Lightness spectrum spread -- something I took for granted, up until now).
I'm beginning to think Blade Runner had some funky processing done to it and that the Blu-ray is really a bit of a mess. My first order of business will be a close look at the Blu .PNG to see what it's got and what it's not.
Spaced Ranger said:
PDB said:
I don't have that particular scene yet with the Criterion yet (only have a copy of the first side so far). But when I get it I will send it your way. If noise is the problem, the Criterion may not be much more help since it is very soft and noisy.
Thanks -- whenever you can grab'em!
Up until now, noise hasn't been any problem at all for the color (H-S) source. I once made a test H-S-L mix from a half-size, compressed, color YouTube video and the full-size, quality broadcast, B&W TV capture:
It looks just great, even into the shadows! Granted, the overall look of each source was the same (same Lightness spectrum spread -- something I took for granted, up until now).
I'm beginning to think Blade Runner had some funky processing done to it and that the Blu-ray is really a bit of a mess. My first order of business will be a close look at the Blu .PNG to see what it's got and what it's not.
Cool, I will send the PNGs when I get them, Space Ranger. Out of curiosity what movie is that?
This was the old Disney TV series Zorro. Originally filmed in B&W, Disney later colorized it (and did a quality job of it, too). Both versions are now on DVD ... if you can find them. :) This particular test was of the first episode.
The "fixes" were rudimentary, just for the proof-of-concept. In a paint program, the YouTube snapshot (shown here actual size) was heavily smeared to reduce the pronounced compression artifacts. For actual video processing with an Avisynth script, a proper deblocking filter would be a better start.
The Blade Runner laserdiscs are not this bad. (That's why I suspect there must be some odd variations in the Blu-ray that would require fixing, too.)
Indeed it is Zorro. (still pissed about that limited DVD reissue a few years back, priced way out of reach for broke college students! Now I don't have $400 for ebaying a part of my childhood!)
I went through my many video copies in a few scenes. (Embassy VHS, Criterion CLV, DC LD, 97 DVD, 5 disc DVD UCE, 30th Anniv BD) Still working on my ATI HD750 card for captures but I can't get the darn thing to work.
The Embassy VHS is the same pan n' scan as the LD. Compared directly against the Criterion on my calibrated Trinitron reveals that the older transfer has a contrast boost which dials back some of the deeper color. The Criterion has better blacks and a deeper overall saturation in the color. For example the blue lighting in the opening interrogation is much bluer. The print source is also different, with the Embassy having damage inherent of a release print, and the Criterion seeming to come from a clean scope IP.
Comparing the IC and DC LDs against one another reveals that they really aren't that far apart. The DC LD is wonderfully transferred and benefits from the greater technology from apparently a fresh scan. It is far cleaner and in direct comparison has a fuller color depth than the Criterion IC presentation. It looks a bit more filmlike but otherwise looks very close to the Criterion issue. Imagine toning back the saturation level just a touch and increasing the depth. The DC has much deeper blacks and a greater clarity, but again this is likely from being a more modern scan than anything else.
Comparing the DC LD and DVD shows that the DVD has a red-pink push to it, that pops up in the opening skyline and the now reddish skin tones of Holden and Leon in the interrogation. The digital transfer is technologically superior but one has the awful digital noise look of early DVD and poor compression, and thus the CAV LD offers a more natural presentation and lacks the very slight red-pink push. The DVD is also cropped.
The archival branched DVD reveals a new far more detailed scan of the film that is conformed to all three versions. The biggest difference comes in how the lighting is captured, as from this point forward the film's lighting is no longer limited to NTSC standard and just in the way it comes across the screen in each scene drastically affects the way in which the color appears. The interrogation now alternates between a delicate white and blue light, and Deck's sushi joint has its lighting really carry over the fluorescence and is far closer to what we see in the altered Final Cut.
The Workprint despite its resurrected form from a deteriorated 70mm blowup is the real clue. The new transfer and color correction presents it in as best shape as possible. The color, contrast and brightness actually place it somewhere between the film print based Criterion and DC LDs and the newer transfers done from fresh scans for the Final Cut in 2007. The workprint has the filmic look and brightness levels of the old LDs despite being a new scan because it is film print sourced, but because it was a modern scan it is also able to show and display the greater detail in the intricate lighting scheme. Thus you actually have a representation of the film that has the greater clarity of the new scans with at least some of the look that was generated by printing back to film for release in 1982/1992.
The big difference between the film based transfers and new scans is in the brightness levels and how they work with the intricate lighting. The film printing seems to have darkened the image and taken some of the edge off the lighting in addition to deepening the color saturation. With the new scans the detail was far enhanced and the lighting able to fully work the way it was intended. But without the film transfer there was no manipulation of this through the printing process.
Just my two cents and a real 35mm frame could shed some potential light here. That is what we need to be sure of what was originally presented, as the 4K scan that sourced the Final Cut and presumably the archival versions on DVD/BD could have obviously been slightly manipulated to something more akin to Scott's preferences. For example, Deck's face while messing with chopsticks has bluish light all over it from everything 2006-onwards and is a regular skin tone on the LDs.
I did this as a break from working. Am I mad? ;)
VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader
captainsolo said:
Indeed it is Zorro. (still pissed about that limited DVD reissue a few years back, priced way out of reach for broke college students! Now I don't have $400 for ebaying a part of my childhood!)
I went through my many video copies in a few scenes. (Embassy VHS, Criterion CLV, DC LD, 97 DVD, 5 disc DVD UCE, 30th Anniv BD) Still working on my ATI HD750 card for captures but I can't get the darn thing to work.
The Embassy VHS is the same pan n' scan as the LD. Compared directly against the Criterion on my calibrated Trinitron reveals that the older transfer has a contrast boost which dials back some of the deeper color. The Criterion has better blacks and a deeper overall saturation in the color. For example the blue lighting in the opening interrogation is much bluer. The print source is also different, with the Embassy having damage inherent of a release print, and the Criterion seeming to come from a clean scope IP.
Comparing the IC and DC LDs against one another reveals that they really aren't that far apart. The DC LD is wonderfully transferred and benefits from the greater technology from apparently a fresh scan. It is far cleaner and in direct comparison has a fuller color depth than the Criterion IC presentation. It looks a bit more filmlike but otherwise looks very close to the Criterion issue. Imagine toning back the saturation level just a touch and increasing the depth. The DC has much deeper blacks and a greater clarity, but again this is likely from being a more modern scan than anything else.
Comparing the DC LD and DVD shows that the DVD has a red-pink push to it, that pops up in the opening skyline and the now reddish skin tones of Holden and Leon in the interrogation. The digital transfer is technologically superior but one has the awful digital noise look of early DVD and poor compression, and thus the CAV LD offers a more natural presentation and lacks the very slight red-pink push. The DVD is also cropped.
The archival branched DVD reveals a new far more detailed scan of the film that is conformed to all three versions. The biggest difference comes in how the lighting is captured, as from this point forward the film's lighting is no longer limited to NTSC standard and just in the way it comes across the screen in each scene drastically affects the way in which the color appears. The interrogation now alternates between a delicate white and blue light, and Deck's sushi joint has its lighting really carry over the fluorescence and is far closer to what we see in the altered Final Cut.
The Workprint despite its resurrected form from a deteriorated 70mm blowup is the real clue. The new transfer and color correction presents it in as best shape as possible. The color, contrast and brightness actually place it somewhere between the film print based Criterion and DC LDs and the newer transfers done from fresh scans for the Final Cut in 2007. The workprint has the filmic look and brightness levels of the old LDs despite being a new scan because it is film print sourced, but because it was a modern scan it is also able to show and display the greater detail in the intricate lighting scheme. Thus you actually have a representation of the film that has the greater clarity of the new scans with at least some of the look that was generated by printing back to film for release in 1982/1992.
The big difference between the film based transfers and new scans is in the brightness levels and how they work with the intricate lighting. The film printing seems to have darkened the image and taken some of the edge off the lighting in addition to deepening the color saturation. With the new scans the detail was far enhanced and the lighting able to fully work the way it was intended. But without the film transfer there was no manipulation of this through the printing process.
Just my two cents and a real 35mm frame could shed some potential light here. That is what we need to be sure of what was originally presented, as the 4K scan that sourced the Final Cut and presumably the archival versions on DVD/BD could have obviously been slightly manipulated to something more akin to Scott's preferences. For example, Deck's face while messing with chopsticks has bluish light all over it from everything 2006-onwards and is a regular skin tone on the LDs.
I did this as a break from working. Am I mad? ;)
Thanks for the that exhaustive breakdown captainsolo.
Sounds like I should reject the DC DVD out of hand. Too much early DVD-era problems. You said the the Criterion LD looks very similar to the DC LD. Is it similar enough to not be worth using as a source? In your recommendation is it worth me tracking down the DC LD to color grade against? Or if I have the Criterion, I'm good enough. I love the Criterion transfer and even though I feel the Criterion is probably more "true" to the original theatrical prints, I still want to do something with the Embassy transfer. Especially since its the oldest transfer and from a release print. If the Warner DC is different enough also, I want to get a hold of that too.
You mentioned the brightest/contrast differences between the film/LD transfers and the BDs. Do the film/LD transfers all seem to have a similar level of bright/contrast?
Its funny you point out the sushi scene. It is a mess to color correct. Widely different between the LDs and BDs. You and I have reached a similar conclusion. Its that scene and a few others that make me think that all of the BDs have been color corrected to a certain extent beyond what a native scan would be. Hell they would have to be made to match in order for the seamless branching to work.
Scanning a vintage 35mm print of BR would be a dream come true.
I think it would be worthwhile to have both Criterion and DC on hand as even though they are similar it would represent the 82 and 92 theatrical looks.
Indeed everything seems to have the same overall appearances in the contrast/brightness levels '97 and before, and the '07 era new transfers mimic each other.
If only we could ask someone on the staff, maybe even de Lauzirika, if the new source scan was reprocessed in any way.
Again, we're never going to know for sure until seeing hard celluloid evidence.
VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader
One thing I have noticed after watching the archival versions on the Blu-Ray is that it seems like some shots are far too bright in comparison to older transfers and don't really seem right.
In most older video transfers, you can see the flashing yellow text on the Off-World blimp advertisement which is very hard to see on any of the remastered transfers, and the shot of Deckard in the spinner upon arrival at the Tyrell building right before the shot of the flying owl looks too bright.
Yeah, at this stage of the game I'm pretty sure all versions of BR on BD have been manipulated to some degree. I'm not sure if that would be an NTSC brightness issues or that the BDs have been darker to look "cooler".
I have put this project on the back burner right now since my priority is finishing Alien first in the limited free time I have. Once that's done, I will get back to Blade Runner.
Okay, retyping this to make it shorter.
The DC is touring arthouses as part of the science on screen series. FC bookings are digital but DC ones are 35mm.
Do yourself a favor if you're nearby. GO!
-----
I saw a packed midnight show resulting in the best version I've ever seen. Besting even the 35mm FC in 2008. Gorgeous, organic and natural with perfect grain and fine detail which revealed an even more delicate color palette with some of the more vivid look found in the old IC transfers.
I could easily pick out things like the wires or Rachael's fluctuating back in the office. Blacks were pitch and deep, for example after Deck wakes up from his dream you cannot see anything besides the vague shapes of the piano.
Remember that the DC was hastily made from a dupe of the US theatrical neg after having to abandon the more grand vision of Ridley making a new cut. Thus the violent bits are gone. But since the film hadn't been reprinted and was only 10 years old at the time the elements were near pristine and the printing process had only gotten better.
I don't think there is a better element around. Who knows how the original was timed or printed and if it was even accurate. Comparison would help, but I can sincerely say I have never felt the film more accurately presented. Sound was optical Dolby surround, very clean and I even picked out backing score in the mono surround.
Funnily enough the hasty process is revealed in the ending. Once the doors close there is a moment of black screen and silence before the end credits come up with music. And the alignment is slightly off kilter. ;)
My two cents:
Re-transfer the DC @ 4K.
Incorporate the violent shots from the IC and color time to match.
Additionally the original narrated audio and happy ending could be seamlessly branched for those who prefer them.
The only fixes from the FC I really find desirable are the continuity ones, i.e. the end dove shot, spinner wires, lip dialogue in Abdul's shop etc. If desired these could be implemented into a sort of Purist Director's Final Cut, because we are literally that nuts for BR.
VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader
Do you have a source for this bit of information? I ask because I've never seen anyone else say or reference this and I would like you to provide a reference.
captainsolo said:
...
... the Workprint that surfaced in 1990/1991 (supposedly due to Steve Hoffman ...
...
Don't get me wrong or mad, I really like this site, however it seems this thread is trying to hit a target that doesn't exist.
My LD copy of the DC should arrive soon PDB, if it's needed let me know.
:)
captainsolo said:
I saw a packed midnight show resulting in the best version I've ever seen. Besting even the 35mm FC in 2008. Gorgeous, organic and natural with perfect grain and fine detail which revealed an even more delicate color palette with some of the more vivid look found in the old IC transfers.
Hey captainsolo, mind if I ask some questions? If you remember from watching the print.
Between the LDs I've seen and the BDs I've noticed two big differences. The first is the when Decker and Gaff travel to the Tyrell building in the spinner. In the IC BD, the sky is dark until closer to the end of the trip. In the CC IC and DC LDs the sky is yellow the whole way. Do you remember what it looked liked? I made this comparison earlier:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjnJ0ge3jCA
Another big difference is when Decker enters Sebastian's place and Priss is pretending to be a doll. In the BD its very pink but in the CC LD its a lot more muted and more towards brown/yellow:
BD/BD regraded to Criterion LD
skoal said:
Do you have a source for this bit of information? I ask because I've never seen anyone else say or reference this and I would like you to provide a reference.
captainsolo said:
...
... the Workprint that surfaced in 1990/1991 (supposedly due to Steve Hoffman ...
...
Don't get me wrong or mad, I really like this site, however it seems this thread is trying to hit a target that doesn't exist.
skoal, have you ever read Sammon's Future Noir: The Making Of Blade Runner? It covers the discovery of the workprint and the making of the DC.
No worries about being mad but I don't understand what do you mean? I don't follow about the target and such.
Jetrell Fo said:
My LD copy of the DC should arrive soon PDB, if it's needed let me know.
:)
Thanks Jetrell. Jonno already gave me a copy so I'm good there but I appreciate the offer none the less. The DC more or less is spot on to the Criterion, even having the Tyrell sunrise, etc.
So funny this thread was revived. There was something interesting posted on the 35mm forum. A user was selling a LPP of the American Cut of BR. First of all I didn't know the BR had any LPPs. I thought all the prints would of been faders. Also interesting it had a mono soundtracks not DS one. Anyway as much as I would love to get that print it sold for more money then I could ever spend on it. But I did copy the pics of it that the seller posted:
So going through those shots and quickly comparing them to the BD and LD was interesting. First disclaimer, these are pics of a 35mm print and maybe off from the actual print, blah,blah,blah, you get the point.
First of all neither the BD or LD are that intense level of blue but the LD has more over all blue then the BD. The shot of the eye is best matched in the BD. The LD doesn't have that much green in that shot. The shot of Priss is much closer to the LD, the BD has some blue but its muted whereas the LD is very blue. Zora falling after shot is pretty similar in both so that's a tie. Deckard and Rachael is close to the BD since they are more pale but its not that big of difference. The Priss shot looks like neither, that's odd. The two of Roy are closer to the LD (the BD has blue in it too) but again not that intense. Neither version have a blue tint on the unicorn. Finally, the shot of Rachael in the car is closer to LD.
No idea how many of these color differences would be lab variations, and how much would be timing differences in the sources used for the transfers. Any idea how all the other sources compare? (Criterion LDs, the P&S Embassy transfer, etc.)
As for LPP, 1982 is the year the stock debuted. In an article on low-fade stocks on in70mm.com, the author said the earliest LPP print he owns is of John Carpenter's The Thing. That released on the same day as Blade Runner, so it's conceivable that it would have had LPP prints too.
The only odd part is it being mono. I thought Dolby Stereo was fully mono-compatible by 1982, and so separate mono prints no longer needed to be made. (Heck, I was sure that the mono compatibility issues were worked out not long after Star Wars; I had never heard anything about general-release 35mm mono prints of any other Dolby film after it.)
PDB, 'moving target' is akin to what TServo2049 is saying. Don't get me wrong, I like reading many of these threads, especially when there are good thoughts, however, as you may guess...
I haven't read anything is this thread that (IMO) counts as authoritative. Nor have I read anything in this thread that mentions something that's missing or that needs preservation.
All this talk comes down to each persons preferences, sensibilities, pickiness, and (faulty) memory. I get it, some don't like the colors, however are they that bad?
It seems some color choices are being picked because someone remembers it that way? Seriously? It's not even worth it to type how misguided this is.
Why do people think the LD/VHS/Beta/'Earlest Home Video Release' is authoritative or correct?
TServo2049 said:
No idea how many of these color differences would be lab variations, and how much would be timing differences in the sources used for the transfers. Any idea how all the other sources compare? (Criterion LDs, the P&S Embassy transfer, etc.)
...
PDB said:
...
skoal said:
Do you have a source for this bit of information? I ask because I've never seen anyone else say or reference this and I would like you to provide a reference.
captainsolo said:
...
... the Workprint that surfaced in 1990/1991 (supposedly due to Steve Hoffman ...
...
Don't get me wrong or mad, I really like this site, however it seems this thread is trying to hit a target that doesn't exist.
skoal, have you ever read Sammon's Future Noir: The Making Of Blade Runner? It covers the discovery of the workprint and the making of the DC.
No worries about being mad but I don't understand what do you mean? I don't follow about the target and such.
...
skoal said:
Do you have a source for this bit of information? I ask because I've never seen anyone else say or reference this and I would like you to provide a reference.
captainsolo said:
...
... the Workprint that surfaced in 1990/1991 (supposedly due to Steve Hoffman ...
...
Don't get me wrong or mad, I really like this site, however it seems this thread is trying to hit a target that doesn't exist.
Not to pointlessly brag again but it was Jeff Joseph and I (nosing around the Todd-AO vaults) who stumbled upon the "Director's Cut" of BLADE RUNNER; unprojected since the day the print was struck. We got the word out and the next thing we knew, bingo, the print was being used to make a new home video version.... Where is my finders fee!
An interesting thing happened at Todd-AO, we found the "DIRECTOR'S CUT" of Blade Runner and notified Mike Arick over at WB. That started the entire "Director's Cut" rush that we still have today. Our fault!
VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader
PDB, the big difference in the DC on the big screen is how many fluctuations and levels of color there are. For instance the journey to Tyrell corp. begins to lighten and only reaches the brighter state upon arrival. It appears much like the IC BD in your comparison which ties into my belief that the archival versions source was the new scan of the DC originally done for the 2006 limited DVD reissue.
I don't recall Sebastian's apartment being pink-ish at all in that shot, but I could be mistaken. There were a number of color differences I noticed but it felt more like they were due to NTSC limitations and mastering for older video standards. Both Embassy and Criterion used a similar element and seem to have higher contrast as well as the boosted colors. I think the DC LD comes a lot closer in accurately replicating the source.
Those stills show some of the more vivid colors of the older transfers, some of which are in the DC print-some not. Again it comes down to what timing was applied in 1982 and how each print was produced. I do think that direct comparison will help, but for all intents and purposes the DC print results in not only what was shot being faithfully reproduced but also the film that should have reached audiences in 1982.
VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader
TServo2049 said:
No idea how many of these color differences would be lab variations, and how much would be timing differences in the sources used for the transfers. Any idea how all the other sources compare? (Criterion LDs, the P&S Embassy transfer, etc.)
That's a good point, Servo. Officially, I think only the Embassy LD video was not director approved. I think Scott had a hand (maybe minor only) in the Criterion Collection LD, the Warner LD (and by extension DVD) and the BDs.
Comparing the Embassy LD is totally different from everything else, having an extreme yellow tint throughout. You can see the pics throughout this and the Alien thread. Its interesting and started me on this project but ultimately probably wrong. I might go back to the regrade sometime since it was unique but for now the CC is my preferred source. Not sure if the CC and Warner DC are from an IP or OCN but the BDs are from those for sure.
The CC LD and the Warner DC LD match up very well. Both have the sunlight on the way to Tyrell's, both don't have the pink in the Priss scene, both have a more blueish tint throughout. I don't know if the Warner guys used the CC as a basis or what have you but both look suspiciously similar.
That's not to say the LDs look radically different then the BDs. They match up in more then a few scenes. Outside of the scenes I have mentioned, most of the changes and subtle, different highlights, etc, etc
As for LPP, 1982 is the year the stock debuted. In an article on low-fade stocks on in70mm.com, the author said the earliest LPP print he owns is of John Carpenter's The Thing. That released on the same day as Blade Runner, so it's conceivable that it would have had LPP prints too.
The only odd part is it being mono. I thought Dolby Stereo was fully mono-compatible by 1982, and so separate mono prints no longer needed to be made. (Heck, I was sure that the mono compatibility issues were worked out not long after Star Wars; I had never heard anything about general-release 35mm mono prints of any other Dolby film after it.)
Interesting thanks for the info. I knew LPPs started up around that time but I'm surprised BR got one. Especially, since all the US prints I've seen of BR were partially faded to red. I'd love to see that The Thing LPP, that would be amazing.
Actually, I have seen a few post Star Wars prints that were mono from Dolby Stereo productions. In fact one of the BR prints I have seen sold before was mono also. I was more surprised it was using the most modern printing technique (LPP) but with mono. I have also seen an Alien print that had a mono soundtrack and the 35mm print I saw of Road Warrior was played in mono. I don't know if the print was mono or DS since I never saw it in person but the theater I was in has a DS setup and I've seen a few 80s era DS print in there. So if it was DS they could play it.
skoal said:
PDB, 'moving target' is akin to what TServo2049 is saying. Don't get me wrong, I like reading many of these threads, especially when there are good thoughts, however, as you may guess...
I haven't read anything is this thread that (IMO) counts as authoritative. Nor have I read anything in this thread that mentions something that's missing or that needs preservation.
All this talk comes down to each persons preferences, sensibilities, pickiness, and (faulty) memory. I get it, some don't like the colors, however are they that bad?
It seems some color choices are being picked because someone remembers it that way? Seriously? It's not even worth it to type how misguided this is.
Sorry skoal. I might be a little dense today but I'm still not sure what you mean by moving target still. Do you mean I changed sources to grade off of? If so this started as an experiment and as better sources became available, I use those instead. Its simple. As my knowledge of a source increases, it helps to shape the project. I used the Embassy LD until people suggested I look at the Criterion. Let me address your other items.
As I have said many times in this thread or my Alien thread, this version is not more right then any other version. I'm not an authority and in no way claim to be an authority. I haven't seen a vintage print of BR or Alien in recent enough years to guess at the right colors. And without having a good print I can't say for sure what BR would look like in theaters. But what I am trying to achieve is a version that enjoys a somewhat parity with the official BD.
Also I have pointed out on the OT, I'm very against going of what I think is the best color, straying as close to grade source as possible (mentioned recently in the 2001 thread too). I consider it a very dispassionate process, taking what I like out of the equation. The only time I make a changes is if there is clearly a problem with the source. Usually the limits of the technology at the time it was made. I'm also against going off people's memory of what a film looked like but since captainsolo just saw it and is an extremely observant man (read his entries in the Bond thread), I think I can make an exception in this case. He's earned that in my eyes.
But why do this? First is that Mr. Scott loves to change his movies. That includes color and that's not limited to changes in technology. Second, it is possible that release prints and OCNs can look nothing alike after color timing. Most modern BDs are from OCNs or IPs and sometimes they color correct to make them look like a release print sometimes they don't. Sometimes the leave the scan as is. Sometime they radical change everything. Sometimes they color correct with very good intentions and screw it up royally (cough Good, Bad and the Ugly cough). Is the BR BD like that? Maybe, maybe not. I don't assume since a source is new that it is better or righter then an older source.
You can accept this premise or reject it. If you say I'm wrong to re-grade to the LD and the BD is right, you are entitled to that opinion and you maybe completely right. I could be totally wrong. I am in no way forcing this project or any other on you or anyone else. Or telling you, you have to accept it as the true or right version. We all rationally know better. All I'm doing is grading the BD to look like the LD, which I feel is a better source. Close to a release print. I have only ever treated all my projects as alternatives to the official releases.
But in the end relax its just a stupid project :)
captainsolo said:
PDB, the big difference in the DC on the big screen is how many fluctuations and levels of color there are. For instance the journey to Tyrell corp. begins to lighten and only reaches the brighter state upon arrival. It appears much like the IC BD in your comparison which ties into my belief that the archival versions source was the new scan of the DC originally done for the 2006 limited DVD reissue.
I don't recall Sebastian's apartment being pink-ish at all in that shot, but I could be mistaken. There were a number of color differences I noticed but it felt more like they were due to NTSC limitations and mastering for older video standards. Both Embassy and Criterion used a similar element and seem to have higher contrast as well as the boosted colors. I think the DC LD comes a lot closer in accurately replicating the source.
Those stills show some of the more vivid colors of the older transfers, some of which are in the DC print-some not. Again it comes down to what timing was applied in 1982 and how each print was produced. I do think that direct comparison will help, but for all intents and purposes the DC print results in not only what was shot being faithfully reproduced but also the film that should have reached audiences in 1982.
Thanks for the rundown captainsolo. Much appreciated.
If you're still interested in creating an isolated score, check out the Esper Retirement Edition. It has a complete score rip, although I haven't checked all the tracks for quality/cleanliness. From what I listened to it's pretty high quality and it's also in .ape format.
she/her
mwah
clutchins said:
If you're still interested in creating an isolated score, check out the Esper Retirement Edition. It has a complete score rip, although I haven't checked all the tracks for quality/cleanliness. From what I listened to it's pretty high quality and it's also in .ape format.
Thank you sir
Does anyone have any subs they want added to this? I have the Eng, Spanish and French.
Will you include the 5.1 audio from the Blu-ray as well as the isolated score track?
she/her
mwah
