logo Sign In

The Spongebob Squarepants Movie - 35mm Re Creation (a WIP) — Page 3

Author
Time

I decided to do my own grain/color edit of frame @ianoliva posted.

Original:

My edit:

Swazzy said:

Thanks to the new availability of a CAM rip and theatrical trailer scans provided by Notelu and bslatky respectively, I’ve been able to more concretely approximate how this thing looked on a print:




The colors still need to be tweaked for accuracy, but all in all this gels with how I remember the theatrical presentation.

Personally the blanket blue just looks wrong to me, so I only added some. But that is my opinion.

Author
Time

I really like your edit Narth, it looks really good and I prefer how your edit looks. What software or plugins did you use to create that?

Author
Time

JonathanArthur19 said:

I really like your edit Narth, it looks really good and I prefer how your edit looks. What software or plugins did you use to create that?

Adobe Premiere with the plugin FilmConvert for grain.

Author
Time

I actually prefer the look of the Final Trailer the best.

Project creator and film enthusiast.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

FWIW, I attended the same 35mm screening at the SVA Theatre that @bslatky brought up some time ago. Before I move forward, I want you to strongly consider the source: I’ve watched and rewatched this movie on DVD with reckless abandon when I was a kid— lines of dialogue, the character’s inflections, incidental music and, yes, even the color timing are practically burned into my psyche. Subsequent viewings as I got older did little to help. So I went into that screening well prepared to point out any (IF any) differences between an original 2004 35mm print and the digitally-sourced home video releases I’d involuntarily committed to memory.

I remember my first and final impressions as if the screening took place merely yesterday, and it can’t be stressed enough: the movie looks no different on 35mm than it does on home video. At least, on this print it didn’t. Frankly, it felt like watching a blown-up version of the DVD/Blu-ray transfer with occasional scratches and dirt marks peppered throughout. Color wise, I couldn’t think back to one instance after the screening where the print didn’t match what was already on home video. I had an identical reaction after a screening of an original 35mm “Iron Giant” print at the MoMA in 2009: point blank, what’s on 35mm is what’s on the pre-Signature-Edition DVDs. So, while I generally admire and fully appreciate the effort to restore/preserve the 35mm film aesthetic where it’s sorely missing, I question exactly what this particular project aims to “restore” to The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie that wasn’t already there in the first place. Trailers aren’t always, if ever, a good reference source because the presented color timing was either not final or adjusted during editing to achieve a desired, albeit temporary look. A theatrical camrip isn’t dependable, either. In the theater, where you sit, how bright the projected image is, the condition and color of the screen that the image is projected onto, and the bulb used in the projector all factor into how you see the displayed image. Add to this equation a consumer grade video camera that likely didn’t faithfully capture just what the film looked like on the screen, and you have the least reliable visual reference for a full-fledged restoration project.

Please don’t misunderstand: I’m not poo-pooing your project. I think it’s pretty cool, actually. I simply believe that a different use of terminology would better suit what you’re aiming for here, which is more of a regrade of the approved color timing than a “restoration” in the traditional sense. Strictly in the interest of regrading, any trailers and publicity photos that are to your liking are perfect references for a regrade, and I can’t recommend the color matching tool created by OT’s very own Dr. Dre enough for a project like this. If you use it well, your regrade will look almost dead accurate to whatever reference(s) you choose; provided the colors in both the source and target images aren’t too different from each other, and even then the accuracy of the tool can surprise you. I’ve used it several times for personal restoration/regrade tests and projects. It works like a charm.

Godspeed.

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

Author
Time

What’s the status of the project?

Project creator and film enthusiast.

Author
Time

Photos look that the publisher probably shown to the press in 2003. Still, I think there is no point at all what happened and what had to change. I like the movie just the way it is.👍👍👍

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TonyWDA said:

FWIW, I attended the same 35mm screening at the SVA Theatre that @bslatky brought up some time ago. Before I move forward, I want you to strongly consider the source: I’ve watched and rewatched this movie on DVD with reckless abandon when I was a kid— lines of dialogue, the character’s inflections, incidental music and, yes, even the color timing are practically burned into my psyche. Subsequent viewings as I got older did little to help. So I went into that screening well prepared to point out any (IF any) differences between an original 2004 35mm print and the digitally-sourced home video releases I’d involuntarily committed to memory.

I remember my first and final impressions as if the screening took place merely yesterday, and it can’t be stressed enough: the movie looks no different on 35mm than it does on home video. At least, on this print it didn’t. Frankly, it felt like watching a blown-up version of the DVD/Blu-ray transfer with occasional scratches and dirt marks peppered throughout. Color wise, I couldn’t think back to one instance after the screening where the print didn’t match what was already on home video. I had an identical reaction after a screening of an original 35mm “Iron Giant” print at the MoMA in 2009: point blank, what’s on 35mm is what’s on the pre-Signature-Edition DVDs. So, while I generally admire and fully appreciate the effort to restore/preserve the 35mm film aesthetic where it’s sorely missing, I question exactly what this particular project aims to “restore” to The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie that wasn’t already there in the first place. Trailers aren’t always, if ever, a good reference source because the presented color timing was either not final or adjusted during editing to achieve a desired, albeit temporary look. A theatrical camrip isn’t dependable, either. In the theater, where you sit, how bright the projected image is, the condition and color of the screen that the image is projected onto, and the bulb used in the projector all factor into how you see the displayed image. Add to this equation a consumer grade video camera that likely didn’t faithfully capture just what the film looked like on the screen, and you have the least reliable visual reference for a full-fledged restoration project.

Please don’t misunderstand: I’m not poo-pooing your project. I think it’s pretty cool, actually. I simply believe that a different use of terminology would better suit what you’re aiming for here, which is more of a regrade of the approved color timing than a “restoration” in the traditional sense. Strictly in the interest of regrading, any trailers and publicity photos that are to your liking are perfect references for a regrade, and I can’t recommend the color matching tool created by OT’s very own Dr. Dre enough for a project like this. If you use it well, your regrade will look almost dead accurate to whatever reference(s) you choose; provided the colors in both the source and target images aren’t too different from each other, and even then the accuracy of the tool can surprise you. I’ve used it several times for personal restoration/regrade tests and projects. It works like a charm.

Godspeed.

Does the Iron Giant BD have a changed look or somethin?

Raccoons

Author
Time

SpacemanDoug said:

TonyWDA said:

FWIW, I attended the same 35mm screening at the SVA Theatre that @bslatky brought up some time ago. Before I move forward, I want you to strongly consider the source: I’ve watched and rewatched this movie on DVD with reckless abandon when I was a kid— lines of dialogue, the character’s inflections, incidental music and, yes, even the color timing are practically burned into my psyche. Subsequent viewings as I got older did little to help. So I went into that screening well prepared to point out any (IF any) differences between an original 2004 35mm print and the digitally-sourced home video releases I’d involuntarily committed to memory.

I remember my first and final impressions as if the screening took place merely yesterday, and it can’t be stressed enough: the movie looks no different on 35mm than it does on home video. At least, on this print it didn’t. Frankly, it felt like watching a blown-up version of the DVD/Blu-ray transfer with occasional scratches and dirt marks peppered throughout. Color wise, I couldn’t think back to one instance after the screening where the print didn’t match what was already on home video. I had an identical reaction after a screening of an original 35mm “Iron Giant” print at the MoMA in 2009: point blank, what’s on 35mm is what’s on the pre-Signature-Edition DVDs. So, while I generally admire and fully appreciate the effort to restore/preserve the 35mm film aesthetic where it’s sorely missing, I question exactly what this particular project aims to “restore” to The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie that wasn’t already there in the first place. Trailers aren’t always, if ever, a good reference source because the presented color timing was either not final or adjusted during editing to achieve a desired, albeit temporary look. A theatrical camrip isn’t dependable, either. In the theater, where you sit, how bright the projected image is, the condition and color of the screen that the image is projected onto, and the bulb used in the projector all factor into how you see the displayed image. Add to this equation a consumer grade video camera that likely didn’t faithfully capture just what the film looked like on the screen, and you have the least reliable visual reference for a full-fledged restoration project.

Please don’t misunderstand: I’m not poo-pooing your project. I think it’s pretty cool, actually. I simply believe that a different use of terminology would better suit what you’re aiming for here, which is more of a regrade of the approved color timing than a “restoration” in the traditional sense. Strictly in the interest of regrading, any trailers and publicity photos that are to your liking are perfect references for a regrade, and I can’t recommend the color matching tool created by OT’s very own Dr. Dre enough for a project like this. If you use it well, your regrade will look almost dead accurate to whatever reference(s) you choose; provided the colors in both the source and target images aren’t too different from each other, and even then the accuracy of the tool can surprise you. I’ve used it several times for personal restoration/regrade tests and projects. It works like a charm.

Godspeed.

Does the Iron Giant BD have a changed look or somethin?

It appears so, but only slightly. Here’s a comparison: https://caps-a-holic.com/c_list.php?c=3553

Project creator and film enthusiast.

Author
Time

The differences between the 2003 DVD and the 2015 Signature Edition are most evident during scenes that originally looked much cooler. The latter release is dimmer, particularly and especially during those night scenes, and has a noticeably warmer (albeit very rich) palette throughout.

Top: 2003 DVD
Bottom: 2015 Regrade

What’s important to keep in mind is that neither version is “right” or “wrong.” The 2003 DVD is exactly what the movie looked like on 35mm, and the go-to for purists. However, Brad Bird himself supervised and approved the Signature Edition transfer, so in the end, it all comes down to which grading you most prefer, and I tend to be split between them myself. While I mostly prefer the original color timing, tons of individual shots— sometimes entire scenes in the Signature Edition look like they were sourced from an (of course, nonexistent) IB Technicolor print.

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

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TonyWDA said:

The differences between the 2003 DVD and the 2015 Signature Edition are most evident during scenes that originally looked much cooler. The latter release is dimmer, particularly and especially during those night scenes, and has a noticeably warmer (albeit very rich) palette throughout.

Top: 2003 DVD
Bottom: 2015 Regrade

What’s important to keep in mind is that neither version is “right” or “wrong.” The 2003 DVD is exactly what the movie looked like on 35mm, and the go-to for purists. However, Brad Bird himself supervised and approved the Signature Edition transfer, so in the end, it all comes down to which grading you most prefer, and I tend to be split between them myself. While I mostly prefer the original color timing, tons of individual shots— sometimes entire scenes in the Signature Edition look like they were sourced from an (of course, nonexistent) IB Technicolor print.

I prefer the SE in terms of colors. They feel a lot more cinematic at times. Although I prefer the 2003 version for snow scenes.

Project creator and film enthusiast.

Author
Time

Did the SpongeBob Remaster just get cancelled?

Author
Time

The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie was originally completed in a 2K digital intermediate, so is this new version and upscale or rerender or what?

Project creator and film enthusiast.