logo Sign In

The Spongebob Squarepants Movie - 35mm Re Creation (a WIP) — Page 4

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Well… it’s dimmer. Unlike the DVD and Blu-ray releases, the HDR version is a film-sourced transfer, matted to 1.85:1 with some of the colors dialed up. (Note the colors on the eyes of Mr. Krabs, Plankton, Gary, and Patrick’s pants.) I still need to check the rest of the HDR version and see how it compares to the original transfer.

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

“You missed! How could you miss-- he was THREE FEET in front of you!”
– Mushu

Author
Time

TonyWDA said:

Well… it’s dimmer. Unlike the DVD and Blu-ray releases, the HDR version is a film-sourced transfer, matted to 1.85:1 with some of the colors dialed up. (Note the colors on the eyes of Mr. Krabs, Plankton, Gary, and Patrick’s pants.) I still need to check the rest of the HDR version and see how it compares to the original transfer.

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

1080p SDR

2160p HDR

How can you tell it’s film sourced and what’s your general opinion?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

spleaterzeldax said:

How can you tell it’s film sourced and what’s your general opinion?

A fine layer of film grain is present in the transfer, and if you look very closely at the edges of the frame, you can see some gate weave. I still have to watch the 4K version all the way through to give it a thorough review.

“You missed! How could you miss-- he was THREE FEET in front of you!”
– Mushu

Author
Time

TonyWDA said:

spleaterzeldax said:

How can you tell it’s film sourced and what’s your general opinion?

A fine layer of film grain is present in the transfer, and if you look very closely at the edges of the frame, you can see some gate weave. I still have to watch the 4K version all the way through to give it a thorough review.

Yeah, watching it now on my 4K TV, it’s very obvious, I wonder if the old master was from film but you couldn’t tell at that resolution

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TonyWDA said:

Well… it’s dimmer. Unlike the DVD and Blu-ray releases, the HDR version is a film-sourced transfer, matted to 1.85:1 with some of the colors dialed up. (Note the colors on the eyes of Mr. Krabs, Plankton, Gary, and Patrick’s pants.) I still need to check the rest of the HDR version and see how it compares to the original transfer.

Well dang…this is more or less what I was trying to accomplish a decade or so ago lol. Glad to have confirmation it was considerably darker on film, the way I remember it being in theaters. Are you certain this is how it looks with HDR, or is there a HDR grade that was supposed to be applied but wasn’t in these screenshots?

Seeking only the most natural looking colors for Star Wars '77

Author
Time

Swazzy said:

TonyWDA said:

Well… it’s dimmer. Unlike the DVD and Blu-ray releases, the HDR version is a film-sourced transfer, matted to 1.85:1 with some of the colors dialed up. (Note the colors on the eyes of Mr. Krabs, Plankton, Gary, and Patrick’s pants.) I still need to check the rest of the HDR version and see how it compares to the original transfer.

Well dang…this is more or less what I was trying to accomplish a decade or so ago lol. Glad to have confirmation it was considerably darker on film, the way I remember it being in theaters. Are you certain this is how it looks with HDR, or is there a HDR grade that was supposed to be applied but wasn’t in these screenshots?

It looks slightly darker even on a HDR TV, but not too bad. Also, sick Boognish in your pfp

Author
Time

Swazzy said:

Glad to have confirmation it was considerably darker on film…

Well, remember, after a scan, you can color-correct and grade the visual elements in whichever way you want. The new 4K may be film-sourced and a few points darker than the preexisting HD transfer, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that’s what it looked like on original theatrical release prints. What you see in the 4K is likely a regrade to give a film a slightly newer look. You’d need to track down an original 2004 print and have it projected to know what TSSM more or less looked like in theaters. My memory of the print shown at SVA in 2018 is that it looked identical to what’s on the home video releases, but even I’m beginning to question that because it’s been so long since I’ve seen the darn thing.

Swazzy said:

Are you certain this is how it looks with HDR, or is there a HDR grade that was supposed to be applied but wasn’t in these screenshots?

On an actual HDR-enabled display, it’s only a touch brighter than the screenshots I posted, which are tone-mapped SDR snapshots of the new transfer. But you’re still more or less seeing how the new version looks.

“You missed! How could you miss-- he was THREE FEET in front of you!”
– Mushu

Author
Time

TonyWDA said:

Swazzy said:

Glad to have confirmation it was considerably darker on film…

Well, remember, after a scan, you can color-correct and grade the visual elements in whichever way you want. The new 4K may be film-sourced and a few points darker than the preexisting HD transfer, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that’s what it looked like on original theatrical release prints. What you see in the 4K is likely a regrade to give a film a slightly newer look. You’d need to track down an original 2004 print and have it projected to know what TSSM more or less looked like in theaters. My memory of the print shown at SVA in 2018 is that it looked identical to what’s on the home video releases, but even I’m beginning to question that because it’s been so long since I’ve seen the darn thing.

Swazzy said:

Are you certain this is how it looks with HDR, or is there a HDR grade that was supposed to be applied but wasn’t in these screenshots?

On an actual HDR-enabled display, it’s only a touch brighter than the screenshots I posted, which are tone-mapped SDR snapshots of the new transfer. But you’re still more or less seeing how the new version looks.

The regrade makes it look older

Author
Time
 (Edited)

spleaterzeldax said:

TonyWDA said:

Swazzy said:

Glad to have confirmation it was considerably darker on film…

Well, remember, after a scan, you can color-correct and grade the visual elements in whichever way you want. The new 4K may be film-sourced and a few points darker than the preexisting HD transfer, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that’s what it looked like on original theatrical release prints. What you see in the 4K is likely a regrade to give a film a slightly newer look. You’d need to track down an original 2004 print and have it projected to know what TSSM more or less looked like in theaters. My memory of the print shown at SVA in 2018 is that it looked identical to what’s on the home video releases, but even I’m beginning to question that because it’s been so long since I’ve seen the darn thing.

Swazzy said:

Are you certain this is how it looks with HDR, or is there a HDR grade that was supposed to be applied but wasn’t in these screenshots?

On an actual HDR-enabled display, it’s only a touch brighter than the screenshots I posted, which are tone-mapped SDR snapshots of the new transfer. But you’re still more or less seeing how the new version looks.

The regrade makes it look older

Have to agree, you can see in all my squabbling over the ‘original’ colors in this thread throughout the years, the one thing I was sure of was the dimmer color palette, whites appearing as grey and boosted saturation to compensate for that. It’s been 20 years since I saw the movie in theaters but it does line up with what I remember. I would not see it again for another few years on DVD, where it looked more vibrant and like the regular cartoon than I remember it looking. I’m sure most people prefer the digital master, and it’s likely how the movie was always intended to look, but I appreciate having the filmic version as well (if only by way of some haphazard Nick executive decision to simply get a 4K version out)

Seeking only the most natural looking colors for Star Wars '77

Author
Time

This was a 2k digital production with some sections (the David Hasselhoff footage) shot on 35mm and completed as a 2k DI. Even though they were still doing filmouts of stuff until at least 2012, Paramount’s HD master is derived from the DI.

Surprised they went to a filmout on this one since they could have easily just upscaled the 2k DI. Maybe they rescanned the raw 35mm live action footage and while they recomped the filmout sections that had different color it may have made sense to have most of it come from that as opposed to the DI with drastically different grading.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Could anyone PM me a link to the 4K HDR Web-dl? Thanks in advance.

“Star Wars has, and will always be a restaurant.”

Author
Time

So what is the current status on this project?

Author
Time

I know this is a somewhat older thread, but can someone explain to me what is the obsession with having a digitally-created movie on 35MM? For older titles that were shot on film, I totally get it, but if it was digital to begin with, why the need to recreate the film feel, if that was never the intent in the first place? The Blu-Ray does a great job of showing the film as it was originally created, the only reason it was ever printed onto film for theaters back in 2004 was because of necessity. I’m not trying to down this project or anything, I’m just genuinely curious about why it matters so much.

Author
Time

gmarsh1996 said:

I know this is a somewhat older thread, but can someone explain to me what is the obsession with having a digitally-created movie on 35MM? For older titles that were shot on film, I totally get it, but if it was digital to begin with, why the need to recreate the film feel, if that was never the intent in the first place? The Blu-Ray does a great job of showing the film as it was originally created, the only reason it was ever printed onto film for theaters back in 2004 was because of necessity. I’m not trying to down this project or anything, I’m just genuinely curious about why it matters so much.

It was never the intent to show The SpongeBob Movie on film in a theater? Pretty sure that’s why they made The SpongeBob Movie in the first place buddy

Author
Time

littlejoe416 said:

gmarsh1996 said:

I know this is a somewhat older thread, but can someone explain to me what is the obsession with having a digitally-created movie on 35MM? For older titles that were shot on film, I totally get it, but if it was digital to begin with, why the need to recreate the film feel, if that was never the intent in the first place? The Blu-Ray does a great job of showing the film as it was originally created, the only reason it was ever printed onto film for theaters back in 2004 was because of necessity. I’m not trying to down this project or anything, I’m just genuinely curious about why it matters so much.

It was never the intent to show The SpongeBob Movie on film in a theater? Pretty sure that’s why they made The SpongeBob Movie in the first place buddy

It is because this project is intended to show people how The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie how it looked back in 2004. On the 35mm prints and trailers, the colors were noticably different compared to the Blu-Ray, and the live action sequences were retimed for later home media releases, simply because the Blu-Ray and DVD releases were digitally transferred. Kind of like Toy Story when it first came out on 35mm and VHS.

Author
Time

littlejoe416 said:

gmarsh1996 said:

I know this is a somewhat older thread, but can someone explain to me what is the obsession with having a digitally-created movie on 35MM? For older titles that were shot on film, I totally get it, but if it was digital to begin with, why the need to recreate the film feel, if that was never the intent in the first place? The Blu-Ray does a great job of showing the film as it was originally created, the only reason it was ever printed onto film for theaters back in 2004 was because of necessity. I’m not trying to down this project or anything, I’m just genuinely curious about why it matters so much.

It was never the intent to show The SpongeBob Movie on film in a theater? Pretty sure that’s why they made The SpongeBob Movie in the first place buddy

No, he means that presenting the movie with the visual trademarks and imperfections typical of the 35mm format was not the filmmakers’ original intent, but it was the only theatrical delivery format available at the time. Had digital projection caught on just a few years earlier, I guarantee that The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie would have been presented that way.

“You missed! How could you miss-- he was THREE FEET in front of you!”
– Mushu

Author
Time

TonyWDA said:

littlejoe416 said:

gmarsh1996 said:

I know this is a somewhat older thread, but can someone explain to me what is the obsession with having a digitally-created movie on 35MM? For older titles that were shot on film, I totally get it, but if it was digital to begin with, why the need to recreate the film feel, if that was never the intent in the first place? The Blu-Ray does a great job of showing the film as it was originally created, the only reason it was ever printed onto film for theaters back in 2004 was because of necessity. I’m not trying to down this project or anything, I’m just genuinely curious about why it matters so much.

It was never the intent to show The SpongeBob Movie on film in a theater? Pretty sure that’s why they made The SpongeBob Movie in the first place buddy

No, he means that presenting the movie with the visual trademarks and imperfections typical of the 35mm format was not the filmmakers’ original intent, but it was the only theatrical delivery format available at the time. Had digital projection caught on just a few years earlier, I guarantee that The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie would have been presented that way.

Ok? That’s a moot point tho

Author
Time
 (Edited)

littlejoe416 said:

TonyWDA said:

littlejoe416 said:

gmarsh1996 said:

I know this is a somewhat older thread, but can someone explain to me what is the obsession with having a digitally-created movie on 35MM? For older titles that were shot on film, I totally get it, but if it was digital to begin with, why the need to recreate the film feel, if that was never the intent in the first place? The Blu-Ray does a great job of showing the film as it was originally created, the only reason it was ever printed onto film for theaters back in 2004 was because of necessity. I’m not trying to down this project or anything, I’m just genuinely curious about why it matters so much.

It was never the intent to show The SpongeBob Movie on film in a theater? Pretty sure that’s why they made The SpongeBob Movie in the first place buddy

No, he means that presenting the movie with the visual trademarks and imperfections typical of the 35mm format was not the filmmakers’ original intent, but it was the only theatrical delivery format available at the time. Had digital projection caught on just a few years earlier, I guarantee that The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie would have been presented that way.

Ok? That’s a moot point tho

No, it’s not. gmarsh1996 is trying to understand why users in this community go through the trouble of reapplying a 35mm color palette and grainy texture— byproducts of the only available delivery format available in 2004– to a digitally sourced movie that was never intended to be visually presented that way. You thought his point was that the filmmakers never intended to show the movie on analog film in theaters, which is not what he said.

He’s questioning the altering of the movie’s visual quality because, as I stated in the last post, had digital projection been available at the time of the film’s release, it absolutely would have been presented that way since slightly altered colors and a dip in sharpness and resolve are anomalies the filmmakers would have preferred sidestepping altogether. Hope that clears things up.

“You missed! How could you miss-- he was THREE FEET in front of you!”
– Mushu

Author
Time

TonyWDA said:

littlejoe416 said:

TonyWDA said:

littlejoe416 said:

gmarsh1996 said:

I know this is a somewhat older thread, but can someone explain to me what is the obsession with having a digitally-created movie on 35MM? For older titles that were shot on film, I totally get it, but if it was digital to begin with, why the need to recreate the film feel, if that was never the intent in the first place? The Blu-Ray does a great job of showing the film as it was originally created, the only reason it was ever printed onto film for theaters back in 2004 was because of necessity. I’m not trying to down this project or anything, I’m just genuinely curious about why it matters so much.

It was never the intent to show The SpongeBob Movie on film in a theater? Pretty sure that’s why they made The SpongeBob Movie in the first place buddy

No, he means that presenting the movie with the visual trademarks and imperfections typical of the 35mm format was not the filmmakers’ original intent, but it was the only theatrical delivery format available at the time. Had digital projection caught on just a few years earlier, I guarantee that The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie would have been presented that way.

Ok? That’s a moot point tho

No, it’s not. gmarsh1996 is trying to understand why users in this community go through the trouble of reapplying a 35mm color palette and grainy texture— byproducts of the only available delivery format available in 2004– to a digitally sourced movie that was never intended to be visually presented that way. You thought his point was that the filmmakers never intended to show the movie on analog film in theaters, which is not what he said.

He’s questioning the altering of the movie’s visual quality because, as I stated in the last post, had digital projection been available at the time of the film’s release, it absolutely would have been presented that way since slightly altered colors and a dip in sharpness and resolve are anomalies the filmmakers would have preferred sidestepping altogether. Hope that clears things up.

Ok sure, but still, the first question they asked was why have a digitally created movie on 35mm. Digital projection isn’t relevant to the history of this movie regarding how it was shown in theaters, nevermind whether the filmmakers would have preferred digital or not, it wasn’t ever an option to begin with. So that’s why.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

littlejoe416 said:

TonyWDA said:

littlejoe416 said:

TonyWDA said:

littlejoe416 said:

gmarsh1996 said:

I know this is a somewhat older thread, but can someone explain to me what is the obsession with having a digitally-created movie on 35MM? For older titles that were shot on film, I totally get it, but if it was digital to begin with, why the need to recreate the film feel, if that was never the intent in the first place? The Blu-Ray does a great job of showing the film as it was originally created, the only reason it was ever printed onto film for theaters back in 2004 was because of necessity. I’m not trying to down this project or anything, I’m just genuinely curious about why it matters so much.

It was never the intent to show The SpongeBob Movie on film in a theater? Pretty sure that’s why they made The SpongeBob Movie in the first place buddy

No, he means that presenting the movie with the visual trademarks and imperfections typical of the 35mm format was not the filmmakers’ original intent, but it was the only theatrical delivery format available at the time. Had digital projection caught on just a few years earlier, I guarantee that The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie would have been presented that way.

Ok? That’s a moot point tho

No, it’s not. gmarsh1996 is trying to understand why users in this community go through the trouble of reapplying a 35mm color palette and grainy texture— byproducts of the only available delivery format available in 2004– to a digitally sourced movie that was never intended to be visually presented that way. You thought his point was that the filmmakers never intended to show the movie on analog film in theaters, which is not what he said.

He’s questioning the altering of the movie’s visual quality because, as I stated in the last post, had digital projection been available at the time of the film’s release, it absolutely would have been presented that way since slightly altered colors and a dip in sharpness and resolve are anomalies the filmmakers would have preferred sidestepping altogether. Hope that clears things up.

Ok sure, but still, the first question they asked was why have a digitally created movie on 35mm.

Correct, that’s how he phrased it, before clarifying that he wants to understand why users “feel the need to recreate the film feel,” not literally “Why put a digital film on 35mm?” He even points out that was done “because of necessity,” so he clearly knows why.

littlejoe416 said:
Digital projection isn’t relevant to the history of this movie regarding how it was shown in theaters

Yes, it is. The abscense of that option is, anyway. Once again: had it been available, the movie likely would’ve gone straight to digital and not 35mm. The only reason I bring this up at all is because the discrepancies typical of that format conversion would betray the filmmakers’ original intent, which was gmarsh1996’s whole point in the first place; why take the time to re-create a look that was a byproduct of converting digital film to analog and goes against what the filmmakers intended when they colored and graded the movie in an all-digital environment?

That is what he’s trying to understand, and why I brought the absence of digital projection into this, but we can go back and forth on this forever so let’s forget I ever brought up digital projection. Gone. The fact remains that however different the movie looked on 35mm in palette and texture was not how it was meant to look, and— to finally answer your query, gmarsh1996— recreating that look is most likely fueled by nostalgia and a fascination with how a personal favorite may have looked when it first played in theaters. You’ll find tons of projects like that on OriginalTrilogy, and there will likely be plenty more to come in the future.

littlejoe416 said:
nevermind whether the filmmakers would have preferred digital or not, it wasn’t ever an option to begin with. So that’s why.

Exactly. I repeat: re-creating a look that came out of necessity due to the lack of a digital delivery option, and not creative intent, is what was put into question.

“You missed! How could you miss-- he was THREE FEET in front of you!”
– Mushu

Author
Time

TonyWDA said:

littlejoe416 said:

TonyWDA said:

littlejoe416 said:

TonyWDA said:

littlejoe416 said:

gmarsh1996 said:

I know this is a somewhat older thread, but can someone explain to me what is the obsession with having a digitally-created movie on 35MM? For older titles that were shot on film, I totally get it, but if it was digital to begin with, why the need to recreate the film feel, if that was never the intent in the first place? The Blu-Ray does a great job of showing the film as it was originally created, the only reason it was ever printed onto film for theaters back in 2004 was because of necessity. I’m not trying to down this project or anything, I’m just genuinely curious about why it matters so much.

It was never the intent to show The SpongeBob Movie on film in a theater? Pretty sure that’s why they made The SpongeBob Movie in the first place buddy

No, he means that presenting the movie with the visual trademarks and imperfections typical of the 35mm format was not the filmmakers’ original intent, but it was the only theatrical delivery format available at the time. Had digital projection caught on just a few years earlier, I guarantee that The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie would have been presented that way.

Ok? That’s a moot point tho

No, it’s not. gmarsh1996 is trying to understand why users in this community go through the trouble of reapplying a 35mm color palette and grainy texture— byproducts of the only available delivery format available in 2004– to a digitally sourced movie that was never intended to be visually presented that way. You thought his point was that the filmmakers never intended to show the movie on analog film in theaters, which is not what he said.

He’s questioning the altering of the movie’s visual quality because, as I stated in the last post, had digital projection been available at the time of the film’s release, it absolutely would have been presented that way since slightly altered colors and a dip in sharpness and resolve are anomalies the filmmakers would have preferred sidestepping altogether. Hope that clears things up.

Ok sure, but still, the first question they asked was why have a digitally created movie on 35mm.

Correct, that’s how he phrased it, before clarifying that he wants to understand why users “feel the need to recreate the film feel,” not literally “Why put a digital film on 35mm?” He even points out that was done “because of necessity,” so he clearly knows why.

littlejoe416 said:
Digital projection isn’t relevant to the history of this movie regarding how it was shown in theaters

Yes, it is. The abscense of that option is, anyway. Once again: had it been available, the movie likely would’ve gone straight to digital and not 35mm. The only reason I bring this up at all is because the discrepancies typical of that format conversion would betray the filmmakers’ original intent, which was gmarsh1996’s whole point in the first place; why take the time to re-create a look that was a byproduct of converting digital film to analog and goes against what the filmmakers intended when they colored and graded the movie in an all-digital environment?

That is what he’s trying to understand, and why I brought the absence of digital projection into this, but we can go back and forth on this forever so let’s forget I ever brought up digital projection. Gone. The fact remains that however different the movie looked on 35mm in palette and texture was not how it was meant to look, and— to finally answer your query, gmarsh1996— recreating that look is most likely fueled by nostalgia and a fascination with how a personal favorite may have looked when it first played in theaters. You’ll find tons of projects like that on OriginalTrilogy, and there will likely be plenty more to come in the future.

littlejoe416 said:
nevermind whether the filmmakers would have preferred digital or not, it wasn’t ever an option to begin with. So that’s why.

Exactly. I repeat: re-creating a look that came out of necessity due to the lack of a digital delivery option, and not creative intent, is what was put into question.

lol