EJones216

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=20921

Kino has just announced a 50th anniversary Blu-ray set with both the theatrical and extended cuts remastered in 4K, and both with the Italian audio as an option (would love it if they did the previous two “Dollars” films this way, too). Hopefully the “Restored Mono” means these are the original English mono mixes. No set street date yet, but TheDigitalBits thinks sometime this summer.

A and B are YCM duplicates on Estar base for maximum alignment. In short, 3-strip positives are what goes into the optical printer.

White parts of C and D are effectively transparent, but of course the black parts aren’t perfectly opaque (or we wouldn’t be seeing garbage matte artifacts all over the OT, now would we?).

Ordering the elements is carefully planned as the optical work-- essentially a very fancy double-exposure process-- can take up to 10 hours (maybe longer) depending on the complexity of the shot. Using just one background plate and foreground element, it might go like this:

1. The B&W matte and inverse matte (just calling it that for the purposes of this post) are put into the printer to calibrate alignment.
2. The YCM background element plus inverse matte (where the foreground object is black) is photographed in the printer.
3. Film is rewound. The YCM foreground object plus matte (where everything around it is black) fills in the blank, unexposed part of Step 2.

For the OT, plates were filmed in 8-perf 35mm (VistaVision) and the final composite would be directly photographed onto 4-perf anamorphic 35mm in the optical printer. This is considered one dupe generation with the only steps being Negative(plate)-YCM-OCN(composite).

RU.08 said:

althor1138 said:

Then again, I guess 4K is only a rather recent thing anyway - what was the first film scanned at 4K does anyone know?

That would be the 1993 restoration of “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs”, scanned and output at 4K (I believe 10-bit Cineon). No idea if Disney has since done a new digital master, and it wouldn’t surprise me if they have. First new-release 4K DI was 11 years later with “Spider-Man 2”, though VFX were done in 2K.

It’s about generating the cleanest possible matte on bluescreen, which in opticals isn’t as forgiving or adjustable as electronic/digital. Once that’s done, the additional passes can bring the element closer to its intended look without needing to worry about corrupting the matte. (this multi-pass technique is still done today in CG effects though I imagine for different reasons, as well as Laika’s stop-motion films which do separate exposures with and without greenscreen to have both the matte and no green spill)

x5gb said:

Papai2013 said:

Sky’s version is not the open matte version unfortunately, was also disappointed they didn’t get Spectre in open matte either like they did with SkyFall, hopefully ITV will when they show it (with logo though) as they’ve shown all previous Daniel Craig Bond’s open matte.

“Spectre” was shot primarily in anamorphic 35mm, with some digital and Super 35. http://the007dossier.com/007dossier/post/2016/01/02/Capturing-007s-Icy-Cool-in-Spectre has the AC article but haven’t re-read it so I don’t remember how specific they get regarding scenes they did non-anamorphically.

EJones216 said:
“Empire” used YCMs as well, but accompanied by a substantially enhanced optical printer with, if I’m interpreting the article correctly, a new lens that finished the composite directly to 4-perf anamorphic rather than on VistaVision where it would then need to be reduction-printed.

Info comes from https://www.theasc.com/magazine/starwars

Looked at another article (Episode IV "Miniature and Mechanical Special Effects, Page 4) and realized I indeed misinterpreted this part of the “Empire” article-- the original’s opticals were also directly squeezed to 4-perf anamorphic during the composite, which is worded by its writer (John Dykstra) as making them “one dupe generation from the original photography”.

In summary the print chain could be described Negative-YCM-OCN.

Source for “The Devil’s Advocate”, where only the first DVD/VHS print run had the original sculpture: http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=4057

“Plan 9 from Outer Space” had some easter eggs added to the Legend Films colorization: http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=4607105

From the same company, “Reefer Madness” has a “420” flash-frame inserted within the first half of the film in both the colorized and restored B&W versions (2004 Fox DVD).

Highlander: Endgame
http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=820504

“Battlefield Earth” is noted on the back of the DVD cover as “edited for home video”, with the theatrical cut’s notorious “man animal can’t fly” scene omitted (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt4MIFk7h7g). Other changes noted here (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0185183/alternateversions?ref_=tttrv_ql_5).

Peter Jackson admitted on the audio commentary for “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” that Smaug in the prologue was replaced with the new design on home release. Anyone know if these shots are the same on both the Theatrical and Extended DVD/BDs?

Michael Mann films like “Heat”, “Ali”, “The Last of the Mohicans” and “Manhunter” were altered by the director on video (though I believe the latter two do have their theatrical versions on modern formats).

“The Devil’s Advocate” had to digitally alter an artwork for legal reasons. “Mulholland Drive” had the nudity blurred on DVD by David Lynch himself (no idea if this happened on the Criterion Blu-ray, or if Lynch’s concerns about nude pictures circulating online still apply).

On less critically-acclaimed films, “Battlefield Earth” and “Highlander: Endgame” were modified on DVD (the latter known for blurring out a giant JVC logo, not for legal reasons but because the filmmakers found it distracting).

“Stand by Me” reportedly had an alteration during its theatrical run, with the text on the monitor at the end refined.

Do the “Raiders” alterations still exist on the Blu-ray? I recall Spielberg a few years ago changing his stance on special editions (comparing his newfound agreement with purists to how outraged he would be if someone did wire removal on George Pal’s “The War of the Worlds”).

Multiple INs would be a given for such a popular film (and I do recall “The Godfather” OCN becoming so worn that the normally photochemical-only Robert A. Harris didn’t want to risk running it through a gear-based mechanism again), but “Empire” and “Jedi” (and “The Godfather Part II” for that matter) weren’t known for having their negatives in such terrible condition… and later on, the extremely popular “Titanic” only needed new INs made. So I guess a couple more questions:

Is there a rough idea for when the OCN-IP-IN-Print order started? And in the case of an optically blown-up Super 35 film, were the anamorphic internegatives straight from the S35 IP or were two more steps added like OCN-IP-Blowup-Positive-IN-Print?

Regarding whether the negative or a printed positive is used in the optical printer, the original “Star Wars” used black-and-white YCM separations-- also worth noting the YCMs were made on Estar base instead of standard acetate to maximize stability. “Empire” used YCMs as well, but accompanied by a substantially enhanced optical printer with, if I’m interpreting the article correctly, a new lens that finished the composite directly to 4-perf anamorphic rather than on VistaVision where it would then need to be reduction-printed.

The printing tech changed substantially less on “Jedi”, but they made crude black-and-white composites of every VFX shot first (“Empire” only did this for problem shots), which from an editorial standpoint was extremely helpful for the sound team as they could work on these shots before they were finished.

Info comes from https://www.theasc.com/magazine/starwars/ (I’d have preferred direct links but this page doesn’t let me. The articles sourced are Episode IV “Composite and Photographic Optical Effects”, Episode V “Composite Optical Photography”, and Episode VI “Optical Effects”)

Here’s a question: were the original '77 release prints of “Star Wars” made from internegatives? I do wonder how the OCN could be in such notoriously deplorable condition if the numerous prints weren’t made from it (not including the color fading or '97 recuts).

captainsolo said:

Huh. I know Ronin was opened a bit on the full frame DVD side but I’ve never had it to check myself…hmmm…guess I’ll have to at some point since I’m obsessed with it and Frankenheimer. Also of note is that it had a CCE print run just like Seven.

Some overlays from “Ronin”:

A typical crop looks like this - http://s20.postimg.org/3r3pa2zrx/Ronin_AAPR_AAC_mp4_snapshot_00_50_04_2016_05_16.jpg (TC 0:50:04 – the 1999 R1 DVD’s WS and FS sides are synced exactly so timecodes are relevant to both. I cannot account for the 2004 SE or the Blu-ray)
Or this
http://s20.postimg.org/5wy04l38d/Ronin_AAPR_AAC_mp4_snapshot_01_38_59_2016_05_16.jpg (TC 1:38:59)
Sometimes going further up
http://s20.postimg.org/fp59nz3j1/Ronin_AAPR_AAC_mp4_snapshot_00_46_05_2016_05_16.jpg (TC 0:46:05)
…and even further up
http://s20.postimg.org/ir0nbo61p/Ronin_AAPR_AAC_mp4_snapshot_00_26_47_2016_05_16.jpg (TC 0:26:47)
…and, even with the image a little more expanded, they still pan-and-scan, like from this
http://s20.postimg.org/rr58vv259/Ronin_AAPR_AAC_mp4_snapshot_00_10_47_2016_05_16.jpg (TC 0:10:47)
…to this
http://s20.postimg.org/bdl9cplzx/Ronin_AAPR_AAC_mp4_snapshot_00_10_50_2016_05_16.jpg (TC 0:10:50)
Just a few seconds later, one of the 4x3 transfer’s almost completely unmatted shots comes in
http://s20.postimg.org/m1kext6l9/Ronin_AAPR_AAC_mp4_snapshot_00_10_55_2016_05_16.jpg (TC 0:10:55)
This is the absolute widest it goes (including a bit of the aperture at the top-- this shot and the “RONIN” title card were the only two that went so far up that you can see the splice at the beginning):
http://s20.postimg.org/59z3f26cd/Ronin_AAPR_AAC_mp4_snapshot_01_39_10_2016_05_16.jpg (TC 1:39:10)
While this split-second shot is the absolute smallest by far:
http://s20.postimg.org/6jwwu404d/Ronin_AAPR_AAC_mp4_snapshot_01_07_01_2016_05_16.jpg (TC 1:07:01)
Getting subjective here, there’s some shots that in my opinion look a bit “sitcom”-ish with the extra vertical information…
http://s20.postimg.org/umdqozgrh/Ronin_AAPR_AAC_mp4_snapshot_00_35_18_2016_05_16.jpg (TC 0:35:18)
…while the ice-skating sequence’s framing alone makes me tempted to give the 4x3 version by itself a full viewing
http://s20.postimg.org/cbx1199y5/Ronin_AAPR_AAC_mp4_snapshot_01_45_11_2016_05_16.jpg (TC 1:45:11)
http://s20.postimg.org/ogcai8mu5/Ronin_AAPR_AAC_mp4_snapshot_01_46_28_2016_05_16.jpg (TC 1:46:28 - I may be going overboard with this, but possible spoiler warning)

The black area around these overlays accounts for the complete image area that the 4x3 transfer will utilize for its reframes, some shots even going beyond the camera aperture (but not to the radical extremes of, say, “The Abyss” in 4x3 where you can actually see the film perfs at times). Most of the shots take the frame height that I assume is where the misconception that (4-perf) Super 35 is 1.59:1 comes from. I only have theories on why a 4x3 Super 35 transfer is done mainly at this size, and my best one is that it’s (mostly) scanned at the same size as open matte transfers of 1.85:1 films, only panning and scanning is still necessary since there’s around 13% extra horizontal image information.

Regarding the CCE thing, you may find this interesting: https://www.theasc.com/magazine/nov98/soupdujour/pg2.htm

MrBrown said:

EJones216 said:

…

“Reservoir Dogs” (1997 DVD-- not the 2002 which is completely pan-and-scan) appears to be a straight unmatted transfer, although both the 4x3 and letterbox transfers are overcropped on the left side (running comparisons to the 2002 DVD, it appears the 1997 transfers (which might have been the same ones made for LD and VHS) were done to Academy measurements rather than Super 35, but regardless is another unmatted DVD at your disposal).

…

Wew… the old Disc has a really lot more Image information, compared to the new 4:3 Full Screen Version after 2002.
Seems as if the 1997 US DVD was released 2002 in canada, because my double side canadian DVD, I snatched at eBay has in its credit printings on the packside “printed in canada 2002”.

Regarding “First Blood”: the Full Frame version is widecreen letterboxed in the opening credits, and after that P&S. No matting opened. As the second movie. I thing the third one will be exactly that way, also.

Edit: Regarding Reservoir Dogs, again: Seems as if the French Metropolitan Coffret Collector 3DVD Edition from 2004 also has a open matted Version, Showing even mor as the old Artisan US Disc. It is in PAL and Region 2:
NTSC FS: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xabplkqo25nlj5o/Reservoir Dogs US.png?dl=0
PAL FS: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2krygari89bufmk/Reservoir Dogs FR.png?dl=0

Wow, I did not realize they released FS DVDs in European countries that recently. Learn something new every day-- a shame about the blown-out highlights (I have seen a 35mm print of “Reservoir Dogs” in 2008, which looked closer to the green tint than the 1997’s reds, but it was much more subtle on the print. I remember being surprised at how good it looked considering it was a Super 35 optical blow-up, having seen a print of “Independence Day” the week before which was typically murky). How does the WS framing compare on the PAL versus the 2002 NTSC’s WS?

Having mentioned “Ronin” a page ago, I went through the whole film and realized I was very wrong about it; this is a pan-and-scan transfer, just one that’s mostly unmatted at the bottom and rarely center-cropped. The few full-frame shots clearly indicate it was not shot “common top” but with a similar frame-line to Cameron’s Abyss/T2 chart (if not the same exact one). Given how cartoonish these shots look unmatted (“Ronin” was almost entirely shot with wide-angle lenses), it’s understandable why the whole 4x3 presentation wasn’t a straight unmatted transfer.

Right now I’m looking through “The Fifth Element”, which is clearly a film that only wanted Super 35 for its lenses. It’s probably where the idea that most Super 2.35:1 films completely hard-matte their VFX comes from. Technical constraints are certainly a factor, but on “The Fifth Element” the CG shots were hard-matted only for artistic reasons (http://www.vfxhq.com/spotlight97/9707b.html)-- Digital Domain was hoping to render at 1.66:1. Within the first 30 minutes, most of it is center-cropped within a 16x9 frame height (and I mean if you overlay the 4x3 and 16x9-enhanced transfers on the 1997 R1 disc they align almost perfectly), some non-CG shots are tightened further, and there’s pixels at most of extra vertical information in the CG shots. Only one clip so far-- the “KEEP CLEAR” shot in Korben’s apartment-- is expanded further than 16x9 height, but not by much. If anyone has a 16x9 HDTV cap of this film (and “Ronin” for that matter), I’d be very interested in seeing it just to find out if they went with the same framing methodology (or if it’s completely pan-and-scan).

RE: Rambo, only the 2008 film was Super 35. The first three were all anamorphic.

Super 35 is generally 4x3 on the negative (4-perf only, of course) but the extra information depends on the transfer-- most major studio films in the late 20th-century will have exposed the entire 24x18mm gate on the negative (including anamorphic and Academy 1.85:1 films) and only be matted on the married print. The “Spider-Man” comparisons posted earlier have a couple frames with more information on the left in 4x3 than 1.85:1, and pan-and-scan versions of “October Sky” and “GoldenEye” (I’m sure plenty of others) occasionally go beyond the 2.35:1’s left edge. For a different kind of “unmatted version”, the widescreen versions of MGM’s original R1 DVDs of “Species” and “The Great Escape” are two I know of that expand the left area of the frane (DVDBeaver has comparisons on both).

“Reservoir Dogs” (1997 DVD-- not the 2002 which is completely pan-and-scan) appears to be a straight unmatted transfer, although both the 4x3 and letterbox transfers are overcropped on the left side (running comparisons to the 2002 DVD, it appears the 1997 transfers (which might have been the same ones made for LD and VHS) were done to Academy measurements rather than Super 35, but regardless is another unmatted DVD at your disposal).

T2’s Ultimate Edition’s extras go at length to describe the Super 35 topline used in its production (centered at 1.85:1 with 2.35:1 common top, CGI shots hard-matted at 2.00:1 with 20% top and 80% bottom, framing chart here: http://www.davidmullenasc.com/super35chart.jpg), and in Cameron’s “Letterbox Heresies” essay he appears to favor sizing the 4x3 frame at the 1.85:1’s height, which would explain why his 4x3 transfers are generally a 50/50 split between OAR and pan-and-scan (and examined closely enough, completely ignores the original framing-- the beginning of the pseudopod’s POV shot in "The Abyss’ uses the very bottom of the frame to where the film gate is visible, and as such loses some of the top of the 2.35:1’s frame. The Super 35 demo on T2 Ultimate Edition also shows a shot that goes to the very top). It’s possible many non-Cameron transfers utilized this methodology since the 4x3 negative may be in many shots not completely protected for boom mics and other equipment.

(there’s also Super 35 “common top”, which I assume is more likely to result in an unmatted transfer because all the extra image is below the 2.35:1 frame, but it would need a reference as to what films were shot that way. “Ronin” is the only one I know for a fact was-- still cropped on sides but mostly unmatted as shown here with other S35 comparisons including “The Matrix” at http://www.cinedie.com/formatting2.htm – but this framing was popular enough for Fincher to express his disdain for it and use a common center on “The Game”)

IMDb isn’t the most reliable, but American Cinematographer normally is. https://www.theasc.com/magazine/april03/cover/index.html

The X2 article (ASC’s online archives, for some odd reason, skip between 1999-2001) refers to the first film being shot in anamorphic before explaining why X2 was not. If anyone can find an article from the AC July 2000 issue, it should completely confirm this (and possibly mention whether any shots, like VFX shots, were done in Super 35 or VistaVision-- as the “Moulin Rogue!” article mentioned one scene was shot in Super 35 for VFX reasons-- but at the same time those shots could be hard-matted. Given that “X-Men” did not go through a DI, any 4x3 transfer would likely be sourced from an anamorphic IP).

X-Men (2000) would presumably be all pan-and-scan as it was shot anamorphically.

If I'm in one of those multiplexes that shorten the screen right when the trailers start (for scope prints, which is something like 90% of all the movies out there*), then yes, sometimes I do feel inclined to exclaim, "Hey, it's 1.85!" Now, if you mean actually measuring the screen itself and finding out what ratio it's really, actually projected in, that's just silliness on all levels.

*I'm exaggerating. Put the calculators and iMDB down.

There's gonna be another interesting part of this debate when "The Dark Knight" comes out on DVD and what's rumored to be a multi-aspect Blu-ray (I certainly hope it isn't, but it won't look as disastrous as that one film erroneously labeled as multi-aspect, "Dr. Strangelove").

As for the "Godfather" question earlier on this thread, American Cinematographer has an article on the restoration, complete with frame grabs of entire negative frames. http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynamic/May2008/PostFocus/page1.php

So it can be confirmed that, like most 35mm productions, the entire frame was exposed. Including the generous amount of headroom on top, and the little strip of dead space on the left to be masked and occupied by the soundtrack. I still wouldn't expect anything other than a 16x9 DVD set.