BoingoBanshee said:
No denying a film print is nothing compared to a negative. However, if it’s a 4K scan of a film print or an interpositive, then it’s 4K. Saying otherwise kicks sand in the faces of labels like Vinegar Syndrome and Second Sight who have done 4K scans of films like The Beastmaster where their negatives are lost and had to work with best surviving elements and those releases are gorgeous. Doing a 4K scan of a film print outside the studio system is something I would not look down upon or say “eh, it’s not the negative though is it?”. With Warner’s track record of their 4K scans where they actually have access to the negatives, they still end up screwing it up such as the Burton Batman films. So I’m very excited someone is scanning a print of The Mask…in 4K.
You have a good point about Vinegar Syndrome using prints as source for some of their 4K releases. I do believe a 35mm print contains enough details to be worth capturing at 4K. And I totally agree with you that a 4K scan of a 35mm print is technically a “real 4K” scan 😃
The goal of this project is to preserve in the highest possible quality (that is affordable) what we fans have access to, in this case, a 35mm print.
Great indeed. And I guess you intend to also refrain from any filtering, DNR, sharpening or other fuss, right?
Yes, that’s the idea. I will not apply any filtering, DNR, sharpening etc. If the colors and contrast look good, I might not even do color adjustments. The goal is to have the end result look as close as possible to this specific print. Every print is different and I don’t know how the movie “should” look or how it is intended by the director, so I will keep it simple and have the end result as representative of this specific print as possible.
The only thing I might touch up are obvious and distracting dirts or scratches. But even then I would do it carefully and will avoid adding details where it did not exist before.