The Mask (1994) - 4K Open Matte 35mm Scan - 2024 Edition [WIP] — Page 3

Hi i would love to donate I’ve wanted a 4k release of this film for a long time

little-endian said:

TL;DR:
Should we preserve old movies as closely to their original presentation? YES, absolutely!
Should we continue to make movies the same way despite better techniques being available today? NO, if it’s only for the nostalgia and unwillingness to adjust for the technically better.

I think there is still quite some misunderstanding. Taking the risk to essentially repeat myself:

rwzmjl said:

Very much disagree with this sentiment, as a DP myself who shoots film (s16 for the most part).

With what sentiment exactly?

And it’s not noise (which is a digital artifact); it’s grain.

Noise isn’t (only) a “digital” artifact per se as you can have that in the analog realm as well (actually only there, as quantisation noise from numbers manifests only there during the D/A stage), and in fact plenty of it. “Grain” is just a term used in conjunction with film - grain is a variant of noise.

You are also forgetting that filmmakers had plenty of low grain options available to them if they wanted it, pre-digital-revolution.

Throwing artistic decisions together with my purely technical (call it puristic) argument, is missing the point I was trying to make.

And is it the right philosophy when it comes to preservation to scrub supposed artifacts that stem from limitations of the production?

As I stated, it should be left as it is.

No person seriously in favor of film preservation (i.e. not Lucas or Cameron) would opt for that.

Exactly.

Obviously this has nothing to do with shooting a new production. Shoot noiseless footage with an Alexa LF at 60fps if you want; that is no issue (though you might nauseate some audience members).

That is finally halfway picking up the point I was trying to make. I probably would do that with as little grain/noise/whatever as possible as this is what techncially is preferable (and I tend to adjust the aesthetics to that, granted), but at the same time, I would archive everything else with as little post-processing as possible, shall it be as noisy as it wants to be.

In other, concrete words based on an example: the re-releases of Aliens, especially the UHD BD, suck and I way prefer the grainy, halfway unaltered old Blu-ray versions. However, is all that noise technically desirable? No, the same way the noise and crackles on a vinyl record aren’t. Even if one prefers the look or sound, it could artificially be added afterwards while having the advantage of still possessing an original with a higher SNR. Should grain be filtered which - for whatever reason - has already been part of the original recording? No, not at all, as history shows that it isn’t possible without sacrificing part of the original information (and change the artistic intend from that time if you want which I disapprove as well).

Hence in the case of “The Mask”: of course, no filtering please, “let it grain”.

@blakninja: I’m also looking forward a lot to see your release soon.

The sentiment I was disagreeing with was “I read that argument often lately, but the word ‘intended’ is a crucial premise here as in many cases, it isn’t really but rather a side-effect of technical limitations … So while I can understand the sentiment for artistic reasons and preservation, technically, noise isn’t part of the original image which one tried to capture.” This is plainly false. Talk to any DP who works with film. I recommend you read the thousands of threads on the subject on cinematography.com, might learn something about authorial intent.

“Should we continue to make movies the same way despite better techniques being available today?” This question also demonstrates a lack of understanding when it comes to moviemaking as an art form – did painters give up oil paints in favor of pastels? “Better techniques” or “better technologies” is a misnomer.

rwzmjl said:

The sentiment I was disagreeing with was[…]

Well, it would be a lot easier to understand if you would refrain from using full quotes (which are especially unnecessary whenever replying directly to someone’s message by the way) and instead selectively only start to quote the parts you are actually referring to.

This is plainly false.

This claim you also make after again quoting a bunch of my text including different elements such as the premise of intention, technical limitations and the noise being technically (!) an artefact nominally (!) to be undesired. Instead of precisely picking that up, you throw around a generic “plainly false” while being wrong yourself when it comes to my last statement. Great way of arguing - not.

[…] might learn something about authorial intent.

While I would never dare to claim that such intentions don’t righteously exist, I wouldn’t oversell the concept of such authorial intent either though if I see what questionable decisions directors make nowdays and how many are drowning their movies with the same ugly color grading (especially orange & teal) or AI, just because it’s hip now to do so.

This question also demonstrates a lack of understanding when it comes to moviemaking as an art form

It seems to me like you try to willingly misinterpet me. At no point I say that certain elements or effects shall not be used in movies if it serves the stilistic purpose. Although much of it could nowdays be created mathematically, if one likes to use technically inferior methods for this to create the maximum authenticity, so be it.

On the other hand, in my opinion, one should also be open to technical progress such as higher frame rates and lower noise floors as technically (!) they are superior, whether one likes the style or not. Vice versa for instance one could also criticize that today it seems to be chic to add artifical noise to purely rendered movies (such as “Migration”) instead of appreciating the clean look of the CGI. The same way, old movies shouldn’t be scrubbed up, new ones shouldn’t necessarily be made to look like a classical movie if they aren’t.

My core argument however and also how that discussion started, only was that noise isn’t part of the image by classical definition (independent on whether one wants to preserve it or not), but an artefact. Philosophically, I have to add though that one could also count the noise as being in fact part of the image to be preserved as it cannot be reliably distinguished from the carried information anyway.

Seems my purely technical / information theoretical remark triggered your protection program in terms of artistic intent and archival, which is unnecessary as when it comes to that, we actually share the same opinion.

I hope I could have an access to this project, this film is such a masterpiece and a part of my childhood ^^

(just the scan without restoration would already be magnificent)

I would love to donate, sent you a message

Hope this single sentence quotation isn’t too long for you:

“My core argument however and also how that discussion started, only was that noise isn’t part of the image by classical definition (independent on whether one wants to preserve it or not), but an artefact [sic].”

Are brush strokes in a painting not a “part of an image” according to this imaginary “classical definition”? Film isn’t just a means of capturing what is in front of you. The celluloid itself is the art piece.

You may say you are on the side of preserving supposed “artifacts,” but this faulty reasoning is what leads to James Cameron/Peter Jackson’s ridiculous DNR (people somehow ignored it, but The Beatles: Get Back was scrubbed to hell) or film stock being deprecated as an option for new productions (for instance, the studio forcing seasoned master DP Ed Lachman to shoot digitally on Dark Waters even though they had the budget for 35mm).

rwzmjl said:

Hope this single sentence quotation isn’t too long for you:

Taken the duly noted sarcasm aside …

Are brush strokes in a painting not a “part of an image” according to this imaginary “classical definition”?

Besides that you apparently still confuse the technical with the artistic aspect, I don’t think that “brush strokes” are a good example as they hardly resemble random patterns but are rather part of the signal also from a technical point of view.

Also, picking up the claim of using “imaginary” definitions, some counter question for you:

Video systems, but also film stock reproductions have a quality attribute such as the signal-to-noise ratio. How does that measurement preserve any meaning whatsoever if one defines the noise as being part of the image as well in technical terms (not artistic ones)? In the same way, any higher noise floors of photo cameras could retrospectively redefined as their noise being intended art. One can, but it is important to neither neglect the truely intended “artefacts” (to be preserved) nor to romanticize the real artefacts to be art (ideally not to be introduced/recorded in the first place, but if so, rather preserved as well instead of damaging the intended signal by trying to remove the artefacts).

Film isn’t just a means of capturing what is in front of you. The celluloid itself is the art piece.

That depends on the definition. From a technical perspective, it would in fact ideally just capture the source with as little alteration as possible. From an artistic perspective, the material itself may be treated as part of the art piece, yes.

You may say you are on the side of preserving supposed “artifacts,” but this faulty reasoning is what leads to James Cameron/Peter Jackson’s ridiculous DNR[…]

Not necessarily, as myself as an example intended to demonatrate, and by differentiating between the technical and the artistic aspect.

I certainly wouldn’t have filtered it so my way of thinking is certainly not what leads to those highly questionable releases nowadays.

Neither am I sure whether I would deprecate film stock as an option for new productions, on the other hand, again from a technical point of view, film is pretty flawed when used for analog information (which virtually always is the case except maybe AC3 and SDDS back in the days for audio) and at least some of the preference towards it shows quite some similarity to the preference for vinyl records which against all audiophile claims aren’t better, but worse than any halfway decent PCM recording.

little-endian said:
How does that measurement preserve any meaning whatsoever if one defines the noise as being part of the image as well in technical terms (not artistic ones)? In the same way, any higher noise floors of photo cameras could retrospectively redefined as their noise being intended art.

I promise you every DP you would ever talk to would say that both the grain from film stock and the noise from a digital sensor are an intentional part of the look. On a professional non-documentary production, ISO (or gain in post) is picked for aesthetics. If that weren’t the case, cine cameras would have a permanently fixed ISO wherever the dynamic range is maximized.

little-endian said:
Neither am I sure whether I would deprecate film stock as an option for new productions, on the other hand, again from a technical point of view, film is pretty flawed when used for analog information (which virtually always is the case except maybe AC3 and SDDS back in the days for audio) and at least some of the preference towards it shows quite some similarity to the preference for vinyl records which against all audiophile claims aren’t better, but worse than any halfway decent PCM recording.

You are confusing delivery formats and acquisition formats. Vinyl is a delivery format. Film is both a delivery (positive film) and acquisition format (mainly negative film). We are talking about the acquisition format here. Even as record collector myself, I’ll admit that CD/flac replicates the master version of an album more accurately than a vinyl record; of course it does. That doesn’t have anything to do with an artist’s intent. These records you’re referring to were most likely recorded on multitrack tape which is similar to film–any artifacts that arise from recording to this format are absolutely the intent of the sound engineer.

rwzmjl said:

little-endian said:

I promise you every DP you would ever talk to would say that both the grain from film stock and the noise from a digital sensor are an intentional part of the look.

That might be true in a lot of cases and since I cannot slip into their minds to verify it myself, I better give them the reasonable doubt.

However “every” and “ever” are strong words, ruling out possible cases where what was chosen simply used to be the “best” (again, in technical terms) what was available at that time, eventually limited by the technical possibilities. Same is true for other quickly changing fields such as computer games.

On a professional non-documentary production, ISO (or gain in post) is picked for aesthetics. If that weren’t the case, cine cameras would have a permanently fixed ISO wherever the dynamic range is maximized.

Here, one of my favorite movies “Collateral” comes to mind. Partly shot on video, it has a relatively high noise floor compared to newer productions with Red or Arri Alexa cameras. Does it have a distinctive look? Yes! Should that be preserved? Yes! Would the makers have chosen technically even better cameras if they had them at that time (for instance to shoot with even less additional lights, have it less grainy, etc.)? I honestly don’t know. Part of the question could be answered by checking how many movies shot on video nowadays still use that Thompson Viper FilmStream.

You are confusing delivery formats and acquisition formats.

Nice “tit-for-tat response”, but actually I don’t, although vinyl records as an example are indeed not ideal in this context. I only used them because it’s by far the most glorified end user format. Although there have been more or less direct cuts on vinyl, you’re right. Tape recordings are the better example for the acquisition context.

Even as record collector myself, I’ll admit that CD/flac replicates the master version of an album more accurately than a vinyl record; of course it does.

I wonder where the dissent is, then.

That doesn’t have anything to do with an artist’s intent.

Never claimed otherwise.

The only remark I did made was that there are technical differences of acquisition formats where one may be objectively superior than the other, making no judgement of the artistic value or intend.

However, I also see some relation between technical limitations and artistic choices as they aren’t entirely independent and also the tendency for retrospective glorification which used to be a limitation.

To a big part, I’m playing the devil’s advocate here as I myself still collect LaserDiscs or adore old video games for their style.

These records you’re referring to were most likely recorded on multitrack tape which is similar to film–any artifacts that arise from recording to this format are absolutely the intent of the sound engineer.

I remember those Warner CDs (some of them with their now quite collectible “Target” design) and their disclaimer which almost sounded like an excuse that they attempted to replicate the original master tapes as closely as possible, however due to the CD’s (actually PCM’s at 16 bit) resolution, certain shortcomings of the source might be revealed. Compared to nowdays products, they often are of excellent quality and great to collect.

@blakninja

Hope you don’t mind my little distute here with rwzmjl. Coming back to The Mask, could you kindly provide an update of what of course hasn’t been filtered or altered otherwise (in best harmony with rwzmjl)? 😋

Awesome work, The Mask is one of my favorite movies and to have the chance to see some bits of it in Open Matte is truly incredible. Good job!!

Any updates on the scan? Been a couple months. No rush, just wondering.

@blakninja I donated, Did you get my message?

No more news? This is starting to look a bit suspicious, just saying…

As a donor, I also would like an update.

I would love to contribute! I think the work you have done so far is phenomenal! Sent you a PM

I would be very interested in this also!!

jbrokk91 said:

No more news? This is starting to look a bit suspicious, just saying…

Unfortunately, he hasn’t replied to my private message either anymore.

Hi, is this project still ongoing? Are donations still open?

Is this project still alive? I must see The Mask in 4K.