Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal — Page 46

negative1 said:

ww12345 said:

It shouldn't case color shift unless it was on an Eastman stock or something fade-prone, in which case the colors being removed would be part of the base dissolving or decomposing.

Filmguard is cleaning out that scratch line - it has minor cleaning properties. Basically, when you see a black scratch, that is dirt in the hole. Each of the other colors are emulsion layers being exposed, until you get to the white/clear base color of the film!

 

correct, this is what cinch has to say about it:

"no, it doesn't alter color space at all. the change on the dolby trailer was just due to different color temperatures set on the capturing cam, that's all. filmguard doesn't even cause changes in opacity, so it is optically clear."

later

-1

Good to hear, I suspected different settings had caused the colourshift after I also watched the oceans 11 sample which didn't show any noticeable shift at all, although here the cleaning effect wasn't as pronounced either compared to the DD sample.

Do you plan to recapture whole SW and possibly ESB with FG treatment then? if these promising test results seems consistent of course.

The 1997 special edition restoration started by washing the film in a 104 degree sulfur bath.

Scratches are normally filled by printing or scanning the film while it's passing through dry-cleaning fluid, aka "wet gate".

For the 1989 Lawrence of Arabia restoration, when it came time to copy the negative to new stock, it started to tear apart from age & heavy wear - they were barely able to finish it...

Slightly off-topic but maybe of interest, a projectionist posted to Reddit:

http://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/wxf97/did_you_movie_look_dim_heres_why_bulb_change/

Pics from the bulb change: http://imgur.com/a/OOy8o

What does a projectionist actually do?: http://nesdroc.livejournal.com/123421.html

I run nine screens simultaneously. I'm alone for my usual eight hour shift.

If I may give my 2 cents on the digital vs. film debate...

People keep saying that "digital has better resolution than film prints that are many generations removed from the negative".

First, the majority of digital projections are in 2K, which is barely above 1080p, and not higher than a film print in any sense. Second, film has infinite resolution. People may count grains, but the grains themselves are not uniform. Information on film goes down to the atomic level. Although, most films these days go through a digital intermediate for colour correction, so the resolution will be stuck at that level no matter what.

Also, "digital is more stable and has better contrast/no scratches". To me at least, watching a perfectly stable film is distracting. It's like a moving painting. As to the image quality beyond just the resolution, although no scratches are nice, contrast & colour are locked to a certain range, which no matter what that range is, can be as distracting as the lack of movement. Film has very slight variations in every aspect of the image, aka "warmth", which is more natural to look at and therefore less fatiguing to the eye. I find that listening to lots of digital music, especially compressed, is fatiguing to my ears. Vinyl & cassette doesn't do that.

Brooks said:

Many Bothans died to bring us this restoration...

 LOL

That should be on a tidal card just before the FOX logo.

I think its safe to say that most of us prefer film but the reality is that digital is cheaper and more convenient so we might as well accept that it's the new standard.  Besides, without digital we wouldn't be able to make or share ANY of these restorations.

I <3 VHS....

timdiggerm said:

lurker77 said:

Second, film has infinite resolution.

Oh really?

Information on film goes down to the atomic level.

Oh, so not really. Cool.

 I thought that a 4k scan was just over what a 35mm film frame had on it?

Maybe you need 5or 6 k for 70mm?

 I thought that a 4k scan was just over what a 35mm film frame had on it?

Maybe you need 5or 6 k for 70mm?

If that's true, then you'd need 8K for 70mm.

4k is fine for "good enough" reproduction of 35mm - it will capture most of the perceivable information. But the subconscious mind WILL know that there's something missing.

First let me say that I LOVE film for all the organic, "living" qualities already mentioned.

But for those who argue that 35mm film has more resolution than even 1080p material, I submit this article: http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

In short, while film has the potential for higher resolution, the reality is that digital projection looks just as sharp or sharper. The real lesson to be taken from this is that resolution is not nearly as important as people make it out to be (I was reading another article about that specific topic but can't seem to find it right now). If you really want the highest quality moving image, you also need things like contrast, frame rate, and good color reproduction; all of which are just as important and work together to make a quality image.

The real problem wih digital (IMO), that others are kind of hinting at, is that it feels too sterile. It lacks the little inconsistencies, the gateweave, the scratches, the pops, etc that make it feel organic and alive and, i agree, less fatiguing to watch.

I should also mention that, when scanning film the quality of the source material is incredibly important. Working with a high quality OCN or IP can certainly provide enough information to make 4k scans or better worthwhile. It's just important to understand you're not seeing anything NEAR that at even the best theater. Which then opens the debate of should the goal of home video be to reproduce what you would've seen opening night? Or provide the best possible viewing experience, even if it's technically significantly BETTER than even an absolutely perfect theatrical presentation?

What thread am I in again?

canofhumdingers said:

I should also mention that, when scanning film the quality of the source material is incredibly important. Working with a high quality OCN or IP can certainly provide enough information to make 4k scans or better worthwhile. It's just important to understand you're not seeing anything NEAR that at even the best theater. Which then opens the debate of should the goal of home video be to reproduce what you would've seen opening night? Or provide the best possible viewing experience, even if it's technically significantly BETTER than even an absolutely perfect theatrical presentation?

Depends on when the film was made. Like I said, recent-er films go through a digital intermediate for colour correction, so what you get at the theater is no better than whatever resolution the DI was made at. Older films are analog from negative to print, so even though perceivable information drops, you're still getting a "pure" transfer - it's more of a softening than a downrezzing...

Here's a way that I like to put the debate. If you watched Star Wars in 1977, the photons from the studio lights bounced off of Mark Hamill, and were chemically transferred to film. Then that image was chemically transferred down several generations to the theatrical print. Along this line, the film that was on the set naturally reacted through each successive generation eventually into your eyes, so what you got to see was the equivalent of sitting on the set, with a hazy filter set up in front of you.

If you went to see Attack of the Clones, the studio lights bounced off of...one of the actors, and each photon was mechanically estimated almost exactly the same way each time by a digital sensor. What you got you see was a very sharp binary equivalent of the set.

So what would you prefer? A blurry direct view of the action, or a very accurate estimation of the action by a group of transistors?