Sign In

Papai2013

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
27-Apr-2013
Last activity
22-Jul-2017
Posts
699

Post History

Post
#1091509
Topic
The Mummy (1999) 35mm Feature Film SCOPE print!!!
Time

SilverWook said:

How about not crapping in a thread? If you have access to a rare print and deep enough pockets, knock yourself out.

And some of us like a grindhouse look once in a while. Puggo’s 16mm transfers and The War Of The Stars fanedit are good examples.

Exactly. We like the film look. Nobody is stopping anyone from preserving a rare movie that has not seen the light of day on a home video format. That is actually a good thing to do and should be encouraged. But this is a thread for ‘The Mummy’ (1999), not for preserving rare films, which should be invariably too costly too acquire, unless someone is very rich.

@RayRogers should create such a thread of his own. Where’s the harm in that?

This post has been edited.

Post
#1091109
Topic
The Dark Knight - EE Reduction and Original Color Timing
Time

@RayRogers, there was no need to discourage someone who is investing their time and effort in doing something they love. Not everybody has the money to buy expensive 4K equipment or discs. Don’t mind but please try not to say “officially dead in the water” to someone else’s project, when he/she hasn’t even announced what they intend to do with it (cancel or continue). Kindly do consider.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1091107
Topic
The Mummy (1999) 35mm Feature Film SCOPE print!!!
Time

This is about preserving the theatrical experience, which the Blu-ray and 4K UHD might not provide (the Blu-ray certainly doesn’t).

We need to see how the film looked on the original version (the prints). That my friend, is the original look of the picture. That is the purpose of this project anyway.

Now, if funding is available and the final bid isn’t too much, this might be grabbed.

Nothing is certain, for now.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1090649
Topic
The Mummy (1999) 35mm Feature Film SCOPE print!!!
Time

Scope is short for Cinemascope, or in other words, widescreen. Aspect ratio of scope movies today is standardised at 2.39:1, the shape of the screen of most multiplex cinemas. TheMummy was shot with anamorphic lenses that squeezed a widescreen image within a square-frame which was un-squeezed by the projector to fill the entire cinemascope screen.

Post
#1090647
Topic
The Mummy (1999) 35mm Feature Film SCOPE print!!!
Time

If there is a collective effort, we might be able to get this -

http://www.ebay.com/itm/35mm-Feature-Film-The-Mummy-SCOPE-/253049169462?hash=item3aeae7e636:g:GUYAAOSwpINZaxUK

“The Mummy 1999
Print is in like new condition apart from splices at heads and tails.
Scope print
Polyester
Shipped on 7 x cores
English audio, Dolby SR,DD,DTS ( DTS discs not included )”

Starting bid:
AU $150.00
Approximately US $117.14

Price (Buy It Now):
AU $640.00
Approximately US $499.81

This post has been edited.

Post
#1090646
Topic
The Dark Knight - EE Reduction and Original Color Timing
Time

Nolan will scan directly from the photochemically timed Interpositive. There will be no Digital grading from the negative scan. As a result we will get the truest representation of the theatrical colour timing of the 35mm and 70mm prints (IMAX included). I’ll try and buy the UHD set when it becomes available.

That being said, I am very much interested in This OT project. He has done a lot of work before the 4K news was announced. So we should stick with him.

What I am more interested in however, is the eventual 4K disc of ‘Interstellar.’

Also, Nolan should consider releasing all the 1.43:1 shots uncropped on the discs, as special bonus features; separate from the movie. The IMAX shots deserve to be seen in their full glory.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1081401
Topic
35mm prints coming up for sale
Time

Almost all 1.85:1 films were shot Full aperture 4-perf 35mm film. Today, almost all such movies are shot on 16:9 digital and then slightly cropped from top and bottom to create 1.85:1 DCPs.

Godfather series, Jurassic Park series, etc were all shot full frame then masked vertically during projection. Most of those films were put on VHS and then DVD with virtually the entire filmed image as “Full Screen” editions, because television was 4:3 back then, which is basically same as 4-perf full aperture aspect ratio.

Even widescreen films like Terminator 2, Titanic, True Lies were shot on super 35mm, which gives a usable area of about 1.66:1, and has a common top framing. The bottom image is unusable as far as I understand. Then they were cropped and given an anamorphic squeeze optically during the internegative stage of processing. The release prints contained this 2:1 anamorphic squeezed image that was then un-squeezed by a special lens during projection, to fill the entire cinemascope screen.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1079566
Topic
TITANIC 35mm Preservation!
Time

RU.08 said:

The good thing with Titanic is that I should be able to see it for myself soon projected from cinematic film.
Well you saw a test scan, once I see it projected I’ll know a bit more about how it looks. 😃

If you want accurate theatrical projection colours, you’ll have to use the VERY SAME BULBS used in theatres in 1997 and same voltage or whatever. I think bulbs in the '90s used to be warm/yellow-ish.

Would love to see the projected colours.

Post
#1079556
Topic
TITANIC 35mm Preservation!
Time

RU.08 said:

I respectfully disagree, film is not usually that contrasty. In the left picture the blacks have been crushed.

Then we agree to disagree. I distinctly remember the look of 35mm prints and seeing the scans of Star Wars and others confirmed my memories. Having trained in cinematography myself and having just finished my very own documentary short, I cannot, in my right mind agree with anyone, that the right image looks cinematic. It is quite unpalatable to me, to be honest. The Green shift is revisionist for sure. That I agree.

Look at your Titanic print. Gorgeous, proper contrast, shadows, deeper colours, good highlights. An image “alive” in every possible way. I cannot say the same for the Alien image on the right.

On a side note, it’s better not to begin another long debate arguing about ‘Aliens’ on a Titanic thread. We have already seen the colours on the Titanic print. There is no debate on the colours of that.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1079466
Topic
TITANIC 35mm Preservation!
Time

I did say “If you discount the colour.” So yeah, I know the colour is green-shifted, unlike the prints. But the contrast makes it more filmic and accurate to the look of film prints, which were contrasty and darker than the TV masters of the films.
The left shot has more richness and depth due to the contrast, which is lost in the dull looking right hand-side shot. The right image looks really bad to my eyes.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1079400
Topic
TITANIC 35mm Preservation!
Time

JayArgonaut said:
Very well but I’m sticking with the earlier versions of all three films. For me, the comparison below sums up why the director does not always know best. 😃

Aliens Colour Grading Comparison

It’s very obvious that the image on the left is much more filmic and robust. There is proper highlights, shadows and contrast even if you discount the colour.
The image on the right looks made for TV, not cinema. A Very flat image.

This post has been edited.

To the top