When it has vinegar syndrome, quite some time in preprocessing, relaxing with camphor and various film chemicals before it can even be scanned.
Moving along - R1 is still being processed, but developments are being made, don’t worry. 😃
Sorry for the delay - things are happening, even though they are more “behind the scenes” at this point.
We’re still waiting on that VS R1, and seeing if there is anything we can do to save it. We did scan the second print - audio as well as video - so that part is done. The scanner just finished rebuilding and calibrating the mag machine to get the best scan possible out of the second print (the complete print) so I have full faith that we will do it justice.
As far as accuracy, that’s correct - there were a few visual problems with the BD (mostly compositing issues), as well as the lack of 4 track audio. By completing this, I hope to release a version which will right a few wrongs as well as preserve an original “original” print. I know I’m a bit of a purist that way, but to know that this version was struck for the first run elevates its status a little in my opinion, and I’m a fan of the way prints look, rather than the sometimes overdetailed negatives.
I agree… I feel that if this were it, it would read “Star Wars”…
Sweet, thanks! This project will be really cool when it is finished; I’ve already started digging into some of the audio. Oh glorious four-track mag! 😃
BTW, all of you who donated, PM me - I have some new sweet sources, including audio! 😃
jeffgale, was your comment directed at me? If so, can you clarify? I’m not sure what you’re referring to…
BTW, R1 is almost ready to be scanned. However, until we pay off the first scan, we won’t be able to do a second, so if you have any spare change clinking around, any donation amount would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!
Thanks Dek! Also, crazy theory SpacedRanger… mind=blown!
So, I got some footage from our scanner of the second print, and the results aren’t exactly what I expected. All of the color seems drained out of the film, in ways I’ve never seen before. Usually, when Eastman film fades, it fades from the blue channel first, followed by the yellow channel. This leaves the pinkish/red tint you usually see with films. However, this film seems to have faded in a uniform way, fading the blue, yellow, and red colors at the same level. This will require some in-depth work, hopefully utilizing the color restoration tool DrDre created. Also, I’m hoping my print (the complete print) will have a little more color or that we will be able to use DrDre’s tool to correct the colors better than our traditional ways (manually).
In other news though, the scanner does need some of the funds for the scanning, so if you have any extra cash lying around, it would be greatly appreciated. Also, those of you who donated, PM me for some cool links (stuff too cool to post here!).
Not yet - I can’t wait though!!
By the way, still need funding - if you are thinking of donating it would be greatly appreciated!
Here we go… 😃
Stereo fold-down from a preliminary audio test. I can’t wait to hear all four tracks and do a proper “reconstruction”!
This post has been edited.
Yeah, I knew what you meant - was just clarifying for those people who might have misunderstood. 😃
A bit of further clarification on what that second print will be used for - it will be used as the base for any patches/cleanup of the first print. For example, when you “scrub” or “clean” an area digitally, what the software does is just guess/approximate what should go it that spot. Cool, but not really “preserving” - more of a “recreation” than anything else. What I will be doing with that second print (with any luck) is using them in layers - the first print representing the virtual “top” or “front” of what I’m seeing and the second print as the virtual “bottom” or “back”. If there’s a scratch or a piece of dust on the first print, when I click the button to hand-scrub it, instead of approximating what should be there the software will use data from the next print. This is working off the assumption that while there might be a piece of dirt on one part of the frame on the first print, the odds of a piece of dirt being on the exact same part of the frame of the second print are infinitesimally small. You make a good point about missing reels, but my hope is that the missing reels are not spots where we will have a lot of dirt, or if there is, that we can find some other ways to clean it. I may have a line on some home-made software that will help out quite a bit…
In other news, donations keep rolling in, and I’ve updated the first post. Thanks to all those who have pledged, and thanks in advance for any donations coming from now on! Will continue to keep all posted. We may have some moderately exciting news at the end of next week, as well as some super cool samples! 😃
This post has been edited.
Basically I think what Dek Rollins is proposing is kind of creating a simulation of the print, just using the BD as a source. In my opinion, that’s one of the great things about scanning/preservations in general - you are free to kind of “make your own” if the mood strikes you. However, I wager that Dek Rollins will be so impressed with the restoration that an additional version isn’t necessary. 😃
I don’t see why not. I don’t think I would consider it a “canon” source, but for a regrade it might look pretty cool!
Sounds great! Thanks in advance to you both - every bit helps! 😃
Yeah, 1/4 for five contributors is great! True, 1/4 is still a long way from complete, but it’s better than no donations. 😃
We are doing well with the donations guys (and gals) - keep them coming! We’re almost 1/4 of the way to our total! 😃
Thanks so much all those who have contributed, and those who haven’t, rest assured that your donation is going to a great cause - this is a once in a lifetime opportunity, and even good condition prints (like mine) are going VS or otherwise breaking down… Now is the time!
In theory, the 70mm would have less grain, as well as a possible different aspect ratio.
This post has been edited.
Maybe. It may be a case like Star Wars where stuff is so messed up color wise that you can’t change too much without changing other colors.
Interesting about the seams. I’ve never seen it projected in a proper theater, so seeing this will be the next best thing. 😃
To answer the earlier question (though it has been answered by other posters - thanks guys!) is yes, we will be using the image data pulled from the film. By combining the two prints, we should have a great source from which to work. Although the print is faded, there is plenty of color information there which can be extracted from a new tool by the user “Dr. Dre” and I have no doubt that not only will this be as close to the color references as Stanley Kubrick intended. Additionally, the effects will blend better, due to the generational loss inherent in film. Although SK filmed 2001 with 65mm “in camera” effects, there were some things which simply blended better in the 35mm and 70mm prints (the Dawn of Man backdrop, for example). Believe me - a donation to this project would be well worth it… Not only will we hear (for the first time in nearly half a century) the original audio mix, but we will also see the colors and image the way Kubrick himself intended.
So, got some updates - first step will be scanning the soundtrack, as that takes priority. Our main hope now is that the curl of R1 will be relaxed enough that we can get those edge tracks scanned OK… I believe the plan is to do the audio relatively soon, and the image later (as they are done on a different machine). I will have to pay for the audio scan coming up, and our HDD donor had to back out, so any help on either front would be much appreciated.
The preparations are still being made for scanning. The first print has some VS during the first half of the reel, so that is being dealt with (camphor at the moment). Will continue to post updates as they happen, but please feel free to post in the thread if I forget to update in a while… 😃
Yes it does.
Man… what I wouldn’t give!!
Poita, how many times did you see 2001 in theaters? I know you were one of the lucky ones to see SW projected more than once in '77… (we young’uns envy you!)